Posted on 11/06/2003 7:31:54 PM PST by republicanwizard
Astounding Triumph of Republicanism.
THE NORTH RISING IN INDIGNATION AT THE MENACES OF THE SOUTH
Abraham Lincoln Probably Elected President by a Majority of the Entire Popular Vote
Forty Thousand Majority for the Republican Ticket in New-York
One Hundred Thousand Majority in Pennsylvania
Seventy Thousand Majority in Massachusetts
Corresponding Gains in the Western and North-Western States
Preponderance of John Bell and Conservatism at the South
Results of the Contest upon Congressional and Local Tickets
The canvass for the Presidency of the United States terminated last evening, in all the States of the Union, under the revised regulation of Congress, passed in 1845, and the result, by the vote of New-York, is placed beyond question at once. It elects ABRAHAM LINCOLN of Illinois, President, and HANNIBAL HAMLIN of Maine, Vice-President of the United States, for four years, from the 4th March next, directly by the People.
The election, so far as the City and State of New-York are concerned, will probably stand, hereafter as one of the most remarkable in the political contests of the country; marked, as it is, by far the heaviest popular vote ever cast in the City, and by the sweeping, and almost uniform, Republican majorities in the country.
RELATED HEADLINES
ELECTION DAY IN THE CITY: All Quiet and Orderly At the Polls: Progress of the Voting in the Several Wards: The City After Nightfall: How the News Was Received: Unbounded Enthusiasm of the Republicans and Bell-Everett Headquarters: The Times Office Beseiged: Midnight Display of Wide-Awakes: Bonfires and Illuminations
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
The Pope may have referred to Davis as president in a letter, however neither the Vatican States or any other country in the world extended diplomatic recognition to the confederacy.
Well, I've read several biographies of the man and have plowed through quite a bit of his turgid autobiography without finding any evidence to support your claim, so I can say with reasonable certainty that a supreme court was of no interest to Davis and his regime. He showed more interest in keeping his Attorney General position staffed than the third branch of government.
Your constant fibbing about the subject will never change those facts.
Nor will yours.
The 13 colonies did not have a constitution requiring the establishment of a supreme court. The confederacy did. It's a simple as that. I would assume that even you would realize that.
personally, i think spending more time on killing the invading damnyankee filth & winning the WBTS was MUCH more important between 1861-65 than forming a court.
And keeping his revolving door of a cabinet fully staffed was just as important as the war, and more important than the constitution I guess. Even though a cabinet was not required by the constitution.
btw, you cannot win any argument with N-S, as he is always right...
Not always, just far more often than you.
The Pope is the sole leader of the Vatican State - he is the leader, ambassador etc. The Pontifical Commission (cabinet/legislature) is appointed by the Pope. He is their government.
The original statement from me was 'How many countries must recognize a state/nation for it to be officially a "nation"?' to which you replied '[a]t least one would be nice.'
The Confederacy is one, just as is every country that recognized the Confederacy as a belligerent party in the war - England, France, Spain, Cuba etc.
So I'll repeat that not a single nation - including the Vatican States - extended diplomatic recognition to the Davis regime. Not one. None. Zip. Nada. Zero. The entire world agreed with the United States that it was not a war between co-belligerents but merely a rebellion by the southern states. The Davis regime could call itself sovereign if it wanted. You can call yourself Lord High Ruler of the Universe if you so desire. But unless someone starts bowing and calling you 'Your Majesty' then you aren't lord high ruler of anything. You're just another nut.
You're normally pretty civil. Who p*ssed in your cornflakes?
The entire world agreed with the United States that it was not a war between co-belligerents but merely a rebellion by the southern states.
It is not necessary that the independence of the revolted province or State be acknowledged in order to constitute it a party belligerent in a war according to the law of nations. Foreign nations acknowledge it as war by a declaration of neutrality. The condition of neutrality cannot exist unless there be two belligerent parties.Lincoln recognized the Confederacy OFFICIALLY by blockading her ports.[O]n the 13th of May, 1861, the Queen of England issued her proclamation of neutrality, recognizing hostilities as existing between the Government of the United States of American and certain States styling themselves the Confederate States of America.
This was immediately followed by similar declarations or silent acquiescence by other nations.
Whether the President, in fulfilling his duties as Commander-in-chief in suppressing an insurrection, has met with such armed hostile resistance and a civil war of such alarming proportions as will compel him to accord to them the character of belligerents is a question to be decided by him, and this Court must be governed by the decisions and acts of the political department of the Government to which this power was entrusted.
After such an official recognition by the sovereign, a citizen of a foreign State is estopped to deny the existence of a war with all its consequences as regards neutrals.
Justice Robert Grier, The Prize Cases, 67 US 635 (1862)
On White House stationery? That's new.
Walt
"After such an official recognition by the sovereign..." Grier et al. Their opinion. A Supreme Court opinion at that.
And Justice Grier points out that just because other nations recognize two belligerents that does not mean that both are sovereign. In the sentence before the one you quoted, Justice Grier said, "It is not the less a civil war, with belligerent parties in hostile array, because it may be called an “insurrection” by one side, and the insurgents be considered as rebels or traitors." Just because there is war, and just because other countries recognize it as war, does not mean that it was not a rebellion nor does it convey sovereignity on both parties.
..recognizing hostilities as existing between the Government of the United States of American and certain States styling themselves the Confederate States of America
Yet Her Majesty's government didn't refer to them as a country, only that part of the United States referring to themselves as the confederate states. Again, no diplomatic recognition of confederate independence, then or at any other time. Not by Great Britain. Not by any other country.
Lincoln recognized the Confederacy OFFICIALLY by blockading her ports.
Ridiculous.
Now that's odd. I already gave you clear and conclusive evidence that he did support establishing a court. Did you not read his 1862 address to Congress? Or do you always ignore evidence that contradicts your historically unsubstantiated claims?
He showed more interest in keeping his Attorney General position staffed than the third branch of government.
Considering that it required an act of Congress for him to be able to "staff" the supreme court, and considering that Congress intentionally withheld from action on this matter, it is not at all unexpected that Davis was unable to do so. That does not prove that Davis did not desire a court. He did and publicly said so in a major speech. It only shows that, as I have said all along, Congress and Davis did not always get along and in many cases, such as this one, Congress did the the opposite of what Davis wanted. I'm sorry you don't like that fact, and I'm sorry it spoils your desire to paint Davis as a nefarious conspirator who sat up in the wee hours of the night devising plans in secret with Congress to prevent the appointment of a supreme court, but, unlike your little fairy tale, history shows that Davis wanted a court. You've seen the evidence of this fact and you've seen the reason why Davis did not get a court yet you continue to push your fairy tale as if it still meant something. That can only mean one thing: you are intentionally fibbing.
There is no necessary exclusion between granting recognition and noting the existence of a civil war.
No diplomats were assigned.
False. The confederate diplomats to the vatican were recieved at length and even taken in by a cardinal under diplomatic immunity when their yankee counterparts tried to have them arrested. The vatican continued making diplomatic contact and written exchanges witht the confederate ambassadors from the time of the letter to the war's conclusion.
There is no automatic granting, either.
The confederate diplomats to the vatican were recieved at length and even taken in by a cardinal under diplomatic immunity when their yankee counterparts tried to have them arrested. The vatican continued making diplomatic contact and written exchanges witht the confederate ambassadors from the time of the letter to the war's conclusion.
And this is detailed where?
This is soooo tempting. I could quote at length from the inaugural address of another president and then I suppose you would just scratch your head, sigh, and admit that the war really WAS the fault of the south. Yeah, sure you would.
In any case, actions speak louder than words. Davis didn't take any actions to force the issue, and was more than happy to have the confederate constitution violated so long as he was aided and abetted by the confederate congress. Those are the historical facts that you choose to ignore.
And at the same time Davis had no problem with keeping an Attorney General with nothing to do and a Secretary of State with nothing to do and other cabinet members. He didn't have a problem filling some of those posts through recess appointment, but not a supreme court. As I said, actions speak louder than words and Davis took no action to bring his regime in compliance with the confederate constitution. The only possible explanation is a fear that it might actually put a break on his actions somewhere down the line.
Sure there is. It's in the acknowledgement of the title.
And this is detailed where?
The later correspondences are in the War of the Rebellion records. One of particular interest reads as follows:
"HONORABLE GENTLEMEN: Your colleague, Mr. Soutter, has handed me your letter of 11th November, with which, in conformity with the instructions of your Government, you have sent me a copy of the manifesto issued by the Congress of the Confederate States and approved by the most honorable President, in order that the attention of the government of the Holy See, to whom, as well as to the other Governments, you have addressed yourselves, might be called to it. The sentiments expressed in the manifesto tending, as they do, to the cessation of the most bloody war which still rages in your countries and the putting an end to the disasters which accompany it by proceeding to negotiations for peace, being entirely in accordance with the disposition and character of the august head of the Catholic Church, I did not hesitate a moment in bringing it to the notice of the Holy Father." - Letter of Cardinal Antonelli to A. Dudley Mann, confederate diplomat to the Vatican, December 2, 1864 (emphasis added)
Note in particular to the repeated references to the confederate government and its officials, as well as the characterization of the war as one between two COUNTRIES.
Try if you might, tu quoque boy. It should be amusing to see you attempt to draw comparison between a specific legislative request in a message to Congress and a vague, intentionally rhetorical political message from an inaugural.
In any case, actions speak louder than words. Davis didn't take any actions to force the issue
Then prove it. As I asked you previously, have you searched through Davis' collected works to demonstrate that he never pursued the issue? If not then you have no basis on which to make that assertion.
and was more than happy to have the confederate constitution violated so long as he was aided and abetted by the confederate congress.
That frequent characterization of yours conflicts with the sum of documented history. As any person familiar with the confederate government will tell you, the relationship between Davis and Congress (and especially the senate) was anything BUT a cooperative conspiracy of "aiding and abetting." Quite to the contrary, the two were at each others throats for years. Among the issues that Congress OPPOSED Davis on was the court system. As I have previously informed you, Congress intentionally delayed the court's creation for the explicit purpose of DENYING Davis the power to appoint judges as he desired. Think about it, non-seq. Do you know of ANY president in the history of the United States that did not want an opportunity to appoint as many supreme court justices as he could? Davis was no different because he knew any appointments he made would be supportive of his views on the national level. Congress didn't like that since they thought Davis' judges would be used to usurp the power of the states, much as John Marshall had done in the US system. So they did what any Senate does when it is at odds with the President on judicial appointments: they blocked them from occurring.
Those are the historical facts that you choose to ignore.
No. They are not. Not one thing you said is an historical fact. Not one thing you said is substantiated in any document of any form from the time. Heck, you don't even offer enough specifics to your conspiracy theory between Davis and Congress to even validate it!
And at the same time Davis had no problem with keeping an Attorney General with nothing to do and a Secretary of State with nothing to do and other cabinet members.
You know why? Because these positions had all been created under the CSA law, thus allowing him to make appointments. The court system had not because Congress intentionally withheld action on the court bill. You can't appoint people to something that doesn't exist yet!
He didn't have a problem filling some of those posts through recess appointment, but not a supreme court.
Once again, you can't appoint people to something that doesn't exist yet.
As I said, actions speak louder than words and Davis took no action to bring his regime in compliance with the confederate constitution.
Once again, you can't appoint people to something that doesn't exist yet.
The only possible explanation is a fear that it might actually put a break on his actions somewhere down the line.
That is not even a valid potential explanation, much less the only one. Once again, you can't appoint people to something that doesn't exist yet.
Nonsense. Justice Grier refers to it as a rebellion.
The later correspondences are in the War of the Rebellion records.
Acknowledgement of receipt of an unsolicited correspondence? And the reply from the Holy Father was? Or was there a reply at all? And what about this protection from arrest you spoke of?
You do enjoy calling people 'boy', don't you? Bring back memories of happier times?
As I asked you previously, have you searched through Davis' collected works to demonstrate that he never pursued the issue?
And as I've said I've read biographies on the man and much of his endless (and incorrectly named) "A Short History of the (C)onfederate (S)tates of (A)merica" and nowhere is there anything about some noble crusade to get a supreme court seated. In fact, it passes without mention. That would seem to me to be a good indication of how little interest or regard he had towards the matter.
Once again, you can't appoint people to something that doesn't exist yet.
Or something Davis had no desire to see exist in the first place.
Justice Grier is not the pope.
Acknowledgement of receipt of an unsolicited correspondence?
Not at all. By 1864, Cardinal Antonelli (the head of the Vatican's diplomacy) had been engaging in diplomatic activities with Mann for over a year. Mann reported reaching Rome on Nov. 11 1863 where he was recieved by Antonelli:
"On the 11th, at half past 1 p. m., I sought and promptly obtained an interview with his Eminence, the Cardinal Secretary of State, Antonelli. I at once explained to him the object of my mission to Rome and he instantly assured me that he would obtain for me an audience of the sovereign Pontiff."
Antonelli arranged for a meeting between Mann and the Pope on the 14th. Mann and Antonelli met again on the 21st. It was at this meeting that Antonelli extended diplomatic protection to Mann following the objections of the yankee government over the Vatican's reception of him earlier that week:
"He [Antonelli] took the occasion to inform me, at the commencement, that the acting representative of the United States had obtained an interview of him the day before to remonstrate against the facilities afforded by the government of the holy see to "Rebels" for entering and abiding in Rome; and that he, the cardinal, promptly replied that he intended to take such "Rebels" under his special protection, because it would be making exactions upon elevated humanity which it was incapable of conscientiously complying with, to expect them to take an oath of allegiance to a country which they bitterly detested."
Thus, by 1864, relations between Mann and the Vatican were already well established.
The 1864 letter I quoted from was one of many diplomatic exchanges between the CSA and Vatican, not an unsolicited response. In fact, it appears to be a followup response to a meeting between Antonelli and a CSA diplomat, JT Soutter, on Nov. 20, 1864. Antonelli and Soutter met at length to discuss relations between the Vatican, the north, and the south. Soutter then delivered some sort of document from the CSA congress to Antonelli, which is the subject of the letter Antonelli sent back a week or so later.
And what about this protection from arrest you spoke of?
See above. Shortly before Nov. 21st 1863 the yankees lodged a protest with the Vatican for recieving Mann. Antonelli responded by granting Mann diplomatic protection.
I have no particular inclination towards using that term in either direction. It is applicable, however, to refer to you as "tu quoque boy" from time to time, as the term provides an applicable descriptive reference to your posting behavior on this forum, to wit a tendency towards immaturity in the use of tu quoque reasoning.
And as I've said I've read biographies on the man and much of his endless (and incorrectly named) "A Short History of the (C)onfederate (S)tates of (A)merica" and nowhere is there anything about some noble crusade to get a supreme court seated.
So in other words, you have never actually checked the record itself to see if he did. Well, I have read some of the records of the Confederate Congress and within them are several mentions of the supreme court issue. As I noted previously, the senate overtly acted to block its establishment for the purpose of countering Davis' power. Now, in order for the Congress to act in this manner, would it not be the case that they were doing so because Davis was also seeking a court? It stands to reason that they were. And as I have shown you in at least one documented piece of evidence from Davis himself, he clearly and explicitly entered a request to Congress that they establish a court.
Or something Davis had no desire to see exist in the first place.
Unfortunately for your cause, the known evidence has Davis directly and explicitly stating his desire to see it created. By contrast, you have presented absolutely ZERO evidence that even so much as hints at this alleged desire of Davis to prevent a court from being appointed. In fact, such a position would defy common sense. After all, can you tell me the name of any president at any time in American history who did not desire to appoint as many of his own people to a Supreme Court as possible? You cannot because there are none, Davis included. Live with it.
Yessir, boss.
By contrast, you have presented absolutely ZERO evidence that even so much as hints at this alleged desire of Davis to prevent a court from being appointed.
And there is ZERO evidence presented that he really wanted one created, either. All we have is your analysis of what Davis really meant and what he really wanted and what he really said. Absent any indications from the man himself in his writings then my analysis is just as valid as yours is. And I fail to see where he had any desire for a supreme court.
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.