Posted on 11/06/2003 7:31:54 PM PST by republicanwizard
Are you suggesting that that official blessing was behind the alleged recognition of the confederate government? That the Union had no chance of Papal support because of the Emancipation Proclamation?
Reminds me of a book by Michael Crichton, soon to be a major motion picture: Timeline. One of the issues in the story is Greek Fire, for which a scientist/time-traveller is being held captive. One of the principals of the corporation is interested in recording Lincoln at Gettsburg. They couldn't use it, as Licoln had a high-pitched, squeaky voice IIRC.
A bill came up in Congress, did it not? And it certainly wasn't Congress pushing for that bill. That leaves only Davis.
He let the matter die in the confederate senate
Really? Cause the record of debates I am familiar with indicates that they actively debated it and manuevered to hold it up as a block on his powers.
probably because he had a rebellion to run and a supreme court would have gotten in his way.
Evidence please?
True. None of them indicate any actions that Davis took to get congress to staff the court.
Sure they do. It's called the bill itself. Bills don't magically pop up out of thin air so it had to come from somewhere.
No. They both likely knew what Greek Fire, in the literal and classical sense was in general (i.e. a firey sulphuric compound that was flung in boiling pots and the sort from catapults onto enemy ships). Mann, seeking to convey a discription of the way the yankees were shelling Charleston with live explosive shot, used the term figuratively to the pope. It would be the same as the U.S. today telling somebody "we bombed the crap out of the Hussein regime." Does that mean we literally caused Saddam to soil himself? Or perhaps that we dumped large volumes of manure over the skies of Bagdhad? Not at all. It is a figurative statement that accurately describes the extensive nature of our air campaign during the war.
That is possible, I suppose. I have no idea if he had any military background at all.
As I noted previously, at age 70 in 1863 he would have been old enough to have lived through the napoleonic wars that consumed practically all of Europe. It is therefore WITHOUT A DOUBT that the pope knew of warfare's progression well beyond the days of medieval seiges.
Why yes I am. Your increasing absurdity is amusing.
Yep. If the reverse situation the evidence that Davis was against it would be it's passage and a subsequent veto.
And went nowhere. Davis never mentioned a supreme court in any more of his messages to congress, never mentioned it in any speech I've been able to find, never fought for it at all.
Cause the record of debates I am familiar with indicates that they actively debated it and manuevered to hold it up as a block on his powers.
That's a pretty good definition letting a matter 'die in the senate'. In the mean time Davis could act without fear of judicial interference.
Evidence please?
"...the true and only test is to enquire whether the law is intended to and calculated to carry out the object...If the answer be in the affirmative, the law is constitutional"
What if a court saw it differently?
Likewise.
And evidence of support would be some indication, any indication, that he tried to get the bill through. Yet there is none. None whatsoever.
Actually, it did more than that. Bills that "go nowhere" are referred to comittee and sat on, never to be heard from again. The judiciary bill made it to the floor for debate, where it was repeatedly held back and defeated by the states rights senators.
Davis never mentioned a supreme court in any more of his messages to congress
According to the Jefferson Davis papers website (http://jeffersondavis.rice.edu/) Davis gave only one subsequent state of the union address to Congress on 5/2/64. Thus your sample is hardly conclusive.
never mentioned it in any speech I've been able to find
Per the index of Davis' papers on the Rice website, Davis documents referring to the Confederate Supreme Court appear in the following locations:
Vol 8 (1862) pp. 61
Vol 9 (1863) pp. 3, 219
Vol 10 (1864) pp. 614
Vol 11, covering the second half of 1864 and 1865, has yet to be published.
And those are just the documents specifically indexed as supreme court. That's a pretty good definition letting a matter 'die in the senate'.
So what if President Bush were to put forth a new tax reform bill tommorrow, asked the congress to take it up and sent them messages on it over the course of the next three years? Thenn suppose that, after intense debate in the Senate and repeated efforts to pass it, the measure was voted down for good. Does that mean Bush "let it die" in the senate? I would think not. Rather, the senate actively moved to kill the legislation.
N-S is the Damnyankee Minister of Propaganda;nothing he writes is factual, when he discusses the southland's struggle for independence.
according to him, everything the "filth that flowed down from the north" did was "wunerful, wunerful" and PERFECT in every way and everything done by our small, poor, barefooted, hungry rebel army was AWFUL.
it is the nature of a propagandist to LIE, as it is the nature of worms to crawl on their bellies.
free dixie,sw
In addition to the explicit request for a court bill in his 1862 state of the union address, the online index of Davis' collected works found at http://jeffersondavis.rice.edu/ includes, under its index heading "supreme court," the following documents:
Vol 8 (1862) pp. 61
Vol 9 (1863) pp. 3, 219
Vol 10 (1864) pp. 614
Vol 11, covering the second half of 1864 and 1865, has yet to be published.
This indicates that Davis wrote or spoke on the court AT LEAST four times after his 1862 address, at which time the judiciary bill he desired was being debated in Congress.
And bills that go nowhere are brought up, immediately tabled until the next day, and dropped. Until the next day comes around where they are brought up again, immediately tabled until the next day again, and dropped again. And so it went, day after day, with no request from the president to actually take the matter up.
So what if President Bush were to put forth a new tax reform bill tommorrow, asked the congress to take it up and sent them messages on it over the course of the next three years?
We have no evidence that was done. The court was never mentioned again in any of the messages Davis sent to congress opening the sessions. We have no idea what context the supreme court was mentioned in in any of the quotes you claim. For all we know he was referring to the real Supreme Court, not the non-existent one.
Under the heading of "Confederate States: Judiciary" are pp. 68, 142
Vol 8 (1862) under "judicial appointments" pp. 120
Vol 10 (1864 - first half) under "Confederate States: judicial system" pp. 553-54
That makes at least 8 explicit references in Davis' papers.
Their existence also disproves your contention that Davis was "silent" on the issue after making only a single reference, the 1862 speech.
False. The Senate took up the bill and debated it at length.
We have no evidence that was done.
Sure we do. Davis specifically asked them for it in 1862, and either corresponded or wrote about it at least eight other times.
The court was never mentioned again in any of the messages Davis sent to congress opening the sessions.
Davis made annual messages to Congress in 1861, 62, and 64. It was mentioned in one of those three.
For all we know he was referring to the real Supreme Court, not the non-existent one.
No, because several of the headings say things liek "confederate states" with the subheading of "judiciary system" or "supreme court"
N-S is really "hung up" on the failure of the CSA to appoint a CSSC.
it is the nature of a propagandist AND nitpicker to get "wholly consumed" by MINOR details.
in formation of a supreme court was NOT the main focus of the CSA. the MAIN focus was to WIN THE WAR!
free dixie,sw
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.