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 ...
you're on a roll this morning.
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
They also went into secret session when the subject came up.
The people who opposed the Supreme Court weren't necessarily Davis allies in all things. For example, here is something on Louis Wigfall (Wigfall):
Wigfall supported the unpopular proposals of conscription, impressment, the suspension of habeas corpus and the government takeover of railroads. He opposed any Confederate infringements on states rights, as well as the establishment of a Confederate Supreme Court. Wigfall was a harsh critic of Davis' military policies, and sought to have him removed from command of the Confederate armed forces. His political influence was largely responsible for having pressured Davis into naming Gen. Robert E. Lee general-in-chief of the Confederate forces.
You make it sound like President Davis pulled a Lincoln. SC Sen. James Lawrence Orr wrote the following in 'Report of the Senate Committee on President Davis's Last Message',
'It is also true that the President has recommended the passage of a law suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.'
Justice John A. Campbell, Reminiscences and Documents Relating To The Civil War During the Year 1865, Baltimore: John Murphy & Co., 1887, p. 81.
THOUSANDS of MURDERS of rebel POWs
& the THOUSANDS of civilans who were murdered, raped & robbed by the "filth in blue".
did having a supreme court mean that lincoln, stanton, sherman & ben "the best" butler got executed for their many CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY???
in other words the USSC was POWERLESS and/or disinterested in JUSTICE & "the rule of law".
free dixie,sw
That seems to be his modus operandi: If Lincoln did something wrong, turn to the tu quoque and shout "Davis/Lee/Jackson did it too!" - even if Davis, Lee, or Jackson did not "do it too," as is certainly the case in this court thing.
Even worse, totally ignore the actions of Lincoln/Stanton/Grant/Sherman(*spit*) - "War powers" and all that - to claim the Davis/Lee/Jackson/Southrons did something illegal.
And you have failed to provide any evidence that Davis fought for one.
Care to try your case in front of a jury?
Sure. Would you?
I know you must be tired of trying to defend all the unconstitutional things Lincoln did, but if your only defense is to create a diversion by making unsupported accusations against Davis, then you must have a pretty weak case for defending Lincoln.
Are you trying to deflect attention from the unconstitutional and criminal actions of the Davis regime by bringing in Lincoln? Better try and support your claim that Davis supported the court, other than a single throw-away line in one of the last sentences of a speech.
And a cssc was nonexistent, so we would never know how they would have reigned in the criminal actions of the Davis regime, will we?
I notice tu quogue boss seems to be sitting this one out.
I suggest you track down a copy of "Southern Rights: Political Prisoners and the Myth of Confederate Constiutionalism" by Mark Neely and read up in the habeas corpus commissioners. These were men appointed by the government for the purpose of reviewing the arrests of those jailed without a warrant. These men formed judge, jury and, occasionally, executioner in deciding the future of those arrested for such crimes as failing to support the war or being unionists. And there was no appeal from them. No justice system to come to their rescue. Nothing at all, thanks to the confederate senate and the Davis regime and their suppression of an entire branch of government. Something Lincoln never dreamed of doing.
So any violation of the constitution would be acceptable so long as it advanced the WAR EFFORT?????
The same man that wrote The Last Best Hope of Earth: Abraham Lincoln and the Promise of America. He and Lincoln must have kneepads on if they thought Lincoln & the Union were the Messiah.
But a review posted at Amazon.com reports thusly:
Editorial ReviewsMaybe I will read it. Maybe he has Lincoln pegged.
From Publishers WeeklyShortly before issuing the Emancipation Proclamation, which declared slaves free in the secessionist states, Abraham Lincoln gave assurances to the border states of an all-white society to come, whereby freed slaves would be shipped to South American colonies. [emphasis mine]
Sure he has. It appears in a very prominent public address before Congress.
Already did, last April (non-seq loses again). And your claim about the Confederate judiciary not being formed (yet again).
You sound like a desperate lawyer trying to convince a jury when his case doesn't have a leg to stand on. You are the one making a claim for which you have no evidence.
Single-line throw-away is your characterization, not mine. Let's look at some singles lines.
"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" This single line came in the middle of the speech, but what the heck.
"From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the Continent." That's about 2/3rds the way down. That far enough for you?
"I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth." That's about 3/4th the way down.
Single lines can be pretty effective. Those above were more moving and more effective than Davis' one-line call for the Confederate Congress to do its duty, but you can't dispute that Davis said it. Case closed unless you can find where Davis argued against forming the Supreme Court. Psst, the ball's in your court. Been in your court for a while.
I suppose this is a bit off topic but the following is an update on where things stand on the Butler issue.
I obtained a copy of Neely's essay on it a few weeks ago and have been poking holes throughout it. Neely bases his argument against Butler entirely upon the account's placement of the City Point visit and the Seward horse accident - the two coinciding events that Butler seems to have flipped and placed after his last meeting with Lincoln instead of before it. Neely does all this in spite of (1) the fact that Butler was notorious throughout his book for slightly misplacing the dates of battles, meetings, and other events, though typically no more than a week off, and (2) the fact that Butler clearly states in the text with regards to the Seward accident that his placement of it was only to the best of his memory, not a certainty.
Though it seems that credible reasons exist as to why Butler's placement of the City Point trip should NOT be used to specifically date the Lincoln meeting, Neely treats it as conclusive and, without even looking for further evidence such as the recorded meeting with Lincoln at the White House a week later on April 11, asserts that Butler never met with Lincoln when he claimed or even anywhere in the timeframe! How he could have missed the April 11th memo is itself a bit baffling considering that it appears only a few pages after letters he quoted from in the file of Butler's papers.
I've also found more evidence as to why it may be reasonably concluded that, through failing memory, Butler simply misplaced the City Point trip on his timeline by about a week. In Butler's papers is a letter from one of his friends in Lowell, MA written during the first week in April while Butler was in DC and Lincoln still in City Point. Butler's friend essentially says something to the effect of the following (i've got a photocopy of the handwritten letter but haven't had time to transcribe it electronically yet so this is just a paraphrase): "I tried to drop by the other day but discovered you were still in Washington. I assume that since you stayed in Washington the prospects are looking good for you to get your meeting with Lincoln in the next few days when he returns from City Point."
In other words, at some earlier point Butler had told the guy he would be coming home to Lowell in the first week of April unless he found out he was able to meet with Lincoln, in which case he would stay in DC a few days longer. Since he did not return to Lowell, this letter is conclusive evidence that Butler expected to meet with Lincoln upon the president's return!
And not only that - it also makes way for the possibility if not likelihood that Butler met with Lincoln not once but twice - exactly as he stated in his book.
The documented final meeting with Lincoln was on the 11th, a Tuesday, at 9 AM. Butler doesn't give a date in his book but states that he called on Lincoln early in the morning not long before the assassination, so the April 11th meeting is indisputably that event. It is the second of the two meetings on colonization described by Butler in his book.
Butler says that the first meeting took place about a day or two before the 9 AM one on April 11th. Lincoln returned from City Point, as best as I can tell, on the 6th or 7th (thursday or friday) exactly as had been reported to Butler in another letter he recieved from an official in Lincoln's Treasury Department during the city point trip (that letter basically informs Butler that Lincoln will be staying in City Point until sometime around Thursday, which was the 6th, and then coming back). That essentially means that Butler could have feasibly met with Lincoln for the first of the two discussions at any point over the weekend or between the 7th and 10th, when Hay delivered the memo informing him of the scheduled time on the 11th.
And yes - there is in fact some loose evidence of this first meeting: When Butler recieved the letter from his friend in Lowell while Lincoln was still at City Point, he obviously could not have known about the April 11th meeting, which was not scheduled or delivered to him by Hay until April 10th. Thus Butler had to have known about another meeting before the 11th, of which the scheduling record simply did not survive.
CASE CITATION FINDER
1790-1862 Terms (1 Dall.-2 Black)
CASE CITATION FINDER
1863-1889 Terms (1 Wall.-136 U. S.)
Clarification:
It has come to my attention that a number of cases from the 1862 term, listed under 2 Black., have report dates in the first quarter of 1863.
For the 1863 term, 1 Wall. lists only four cases being reported in 1863.
The above links go to the official SCOTUS site and provide case citations by term.
Please do. He nailed the Davis regime and their massive violations of legal and civil rights, too.
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.