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 ...
EXITED the Court:
May 31, 1860 -- Peter V. Daniel
Apr 4, 1861 -- John McLean
Apr 30, 1861 -- John A. Campbell
Oct 12, 1864 -- Roger B. Taney
------------------------------------------------
May 30, 1865 -- John Catron
Jul 5, 1867 -- James M. Wayne
JOINED the Court:
Jan 27, 1862 -- Noah Swayne
Jul 21, 1862 -- Samuel F. Miller
Dec 10, 1862 -- David Davis
May 20, 1863 -- Stephen J. Field
Dec 15, 1864 -- Salmon P. Chase
-------------------------------------------------
Mar 14, 1870 -- William Strong
Mar 23, 1870 -- Ward Hunt
As one may readily observe, including Justice Daniel who left the Court in May 1860, Lincoln had only four Justices to replace. However, Lincoln appointed five justices.
With the appointment of Justice Field on May 20, 1863 the size of the Court swelled to 10 members.
One may observe that Justice Catron and Justice Wayne left the Court in 1865 and 1867. However, no appointments were made between December 1864 and March 1870.
TRANSLATION:
In 1863, at the critical time of the war, in order to ensure domination of the Court and prevent any negative decisions, the size of the Court was swelled to 10 members so Lincoln could pack it with another member.
While Andrew Johnson was President, it would appear that there were two vacancies he failed to fill. In fact, in order to keep its hold on the Court, and to prevent President Johnson from appointing anybody who might not share their thoughts on reconstruction and trampling upon the Constitution, in 1866 the radical-controlled Congress reduced the size of the Court to seven justices and provided that no vacant seats could be filled until that number was reached.
The actual number of sitting justices only fell to eight, but reducing the official number to seven was an insurance policy against President Johnson ever appointing anybody to the Court.
In 1869, with Republican U.S. Grant in office, the radical-controlled Congress restored the authorized size of the Court to nine members. In 1870, President Grant was able to appoint Justices Strong and Hunt to replace Justices Catron and Wayne who had left the Court in 1865 and 1867.
And THAT is how Supreme Court hokey-pokey was played by the radical-controlled Republican Congress.
So, you would have no objection if the Clinton regime had pulled a Lincoln and had increased the size of the Court to 30 members and allowed President Clinton to appoint 21 Justices, and you would have no objection if the Congress then changed the authorized size of the Court to 7 members to prevent President Bush from appointing anybody at all. You have an interesting viewpoint on what constitutes a fair Judicial system.
[Non-Seq] The Davis regime didn't even go that far.
As you consider the Confederate Congress to be the Davis regime, presumably you consider the current U.S. Congress to be the Bush regime. Quick, notify Daschle and Gephardt!
[Non-Seq] The confederate constitution required a supreme court, just like the real constitution did, and Davis and the confederate congress deliberately ignored that provision.
Primary source evidence quoting public comments of President Jefferson Davis has been provided proving beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty that your assertion against President Davis is false.
You have provided no evidence whatever that President Davis ignored the Constitutional provision, deliberately or otherwise.
Overwhelming evidence has been provided that the Confederate Congress debated the issue of forming a Supreme Court but was never able to reach agreement.
You have provided no evidence whatever that the Confederate Congress ignored the Constitution, deliberately or otherwise.
[Non-Seq] They deliberately violated the very constitution that they swore to uphold. They violated their oath. They lied. They were not honorable men.
Hear Ye! Hear Ye! Non-Seq has made another pronouncement.
[Non-Seq] But they're you heroes. You're welcome to them.
No, you are my hero. You are a man of convictions, like William Jefferson Clinton.
And you imbue the board with a Homi Bhabha-ish intellect and generate an enhanced sense of self.
"If, for a while, the ruse of desire is calculable for the uses of discipline soon the repetition of guilt, justification, pseudo-scientific theories, superstition, spurious authorities, and classifications can be seen as the desperate effort to - normalize - formally the disturbance of a discourse of splitting that violates the rational, enlightened claims of its enunciatory modality."
The Location of Culture (Routledge, 1994), Homi K. Bhabha
My objections would be meaningless, since both actions would be constitutional. As would the actions of President Bush if he increased the size of the court to 30 justices and if a future Republican congress reduced the size to 7 justices to styme a Democratic president. The Supreme Court would still sit, still perform its constitutional duties, still function as the third branch of government, acting as a check on the other two branches, just as our founders required.
Primary source evidence quoting public comments of President Jefferson Davis has been provided proving beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty that your assertion against President Davis is false.
Nonsense. Nothing has been presented to indicate that the Davis regime actively tried to get a supreme court seated. He made one comment in one speech. He never addressed the matter again in any correspondence to the congress, never fought for it, never actively lobbied for it. It's OK with me if you sothron types want to blame the whole thing on the confederate congress. But then you turn around and blame ever action of the U.S. congress, from the creation of West Virginia to rioting in New York, on Lincoln personally. Well, wasn't Davis the head of his regime? Doesn't he bear responsiblity for what happened, or didn't happen, on his watch?
Hear Ye! Hear Ye! Non-Seq has made another pronouncement.
They swore an oath to uphold the constitution. They ignored that. They are dishonorable men. I'm still trying to figure out exactly what the hell you are.
No. Something in between.
Its pretty clear to me that most of the neo-reb ranters here have been taught their hatred at a very young age. It doesn't wear well.
I haven't met the first paleo-confederate that hates America, I fly the American flag, I saluted it this morning as it was being raised. But the war that was fought would be comparable to losing almost 6 million military today, another 4 million innocent civilians, and subjecting 91 million to poverty, the theft and plunder of their every possession, and years of rule by military despots.
like the MURDERS of MANY THOUSANDS of CSA POWs, for example at hellholes like Helmira, Camp Douglas & PLPOWC.
according to Michael Virts lecture, thursday night last, the number of MURDERED POWs was at least 13 a DAY and more probably about 18 a day at the damnyankee DEATH CAMP at Point Lookout, MD. HIS estimate is that at least 15,000 were MURDERED in coldblood at just that one DEATH CAMP.
free dixie,sw
i think NOT.
how did the rapes, tortures, robbery & MURDER of 92 members of MY family, just because they were NON-whites, advance the damnyankees war effort?
what actions did the damnyankee supreme court take to stop such ATROCITIES committed by the "filth in blue"?
free dixie,sw
Some check. Here are some pertinent observations from Madison in Federalist 47:
The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.
This definition of tyranny applies quite well to the Lincoln government. Lincoln defied the courts and assumed powers delegated to the legislature. Now nolu chan points out that the Radical Republicans were even packing the Supreme Court.
oh, i forgot. damnyankees were "angelic & perfect" weren't they? (SARCASM button ON!)
free dixie,sw
It's ok the Republicans ate at Subway.
was torture, intentional starvation, denial of basic medical care, blankets,clothing & housing to, and the coldblooded MURDER at least 30,00 CSA POWs by the lincoln regime OK with you???
the numbers are CORRECT!!!
free dixie,sw
at least 92 members of MY family were robbed, raped,tortured & murdered during a 4-day drunken/bloodsplattered orgy by bluebelly WAR CRIMINALS. NOTHING was done to the perpertrators. NOTHING!
also if it had been a member of YOUR family who was abused, starved,tortured or murdered in one of the damnyankee CONCENTRATION CAMPS, i think you would feel the same as we desendents do.(FYI, 3 members of my family were among the murdered at Point Lookout, MD DEATH CAMP. several other freepers are members of that "pool of desendents" too).
at least 15,000 and more likely 30,000 were intentionaly murdered by the damnyankee POW camp staffs.
free dixie,sw
free the southland,sw
we desendents of the murdered, raped, robbed & tortured civilians & POWs WOULD like a very public apology and a NATIONAL DAY OF MOURNING & REMEBERENCE. that would do much to bind up the wounds that still fester after 130+ years.
otherwise, don't hold your breath till we forget and/or forgive.
free the southland,sw
free dixie,sw
So, you support the Liberal notion of form over substance. It matters not if the court is packed, twisted, perverted and prostituted as long as it exists and issues rulings.
[n-s] The Supreme Court would still sit, still perform its constitutional duties, still function as the third branch of government, acting as a check on the other two branches, just as our founders required.
If, as you have explicitly supported, one radical faction could increase the size of the court to 30 members and pack it with radical fellow-travelers whose appointment is specifically designed to pervert the law in defense of a dictator, there would be no check on the other two branches.
[n-s 765 ] Nothing has been presented to indicate that the Davis regime actively tried to get a supreme court seated. He made one comment in one speech. He never addressed the matter again in any correspondence to the congress, never fought for it, never actively lobbied for it.
What is this crap? A Mulligan? In this new revised version of your alleged thoughts, you lament that, in your opinion, there is insufficient evidence that Davis "actively tried to get a supreme court seated."
Here is what you actually said, and what you are still stuck trying to explain:
[n-s 763] The confederate constitution required a supreme court, just like the real constitution did, and Davis and the confederate congress deliberately ignored that provision. They deliberately violated the very constitution that they swore to uphold.
You did not accuse Davis of being insufficiently active in his pursuit of seating a supreme court. You said he violated his oath by deliberately ignoring a provision of the Confederate Constitution. No matter how much gas you pump into your assertions, they do not obtain substance.
[n-s] It's OK with me if you sothron types want to blame the whole thing on the confederate congress.
It's OK with me if you intellectually challenged Liberal types want to make fools of yourselves trying to maintain that all the actions of the Lincoln regime were legal and proper. I was born, raised, and educated as a Yankee. My Southron roots are in the South of New York. Your southron roots appear lie South of dull normal.
[n-s] They swore an oath to uphold the constitution. They ignored that. They are dishonorable men.
Lincoln willfully, deliberately set out to start a war and violated the Constitution with abandon. Even historians favorable to Lincoln, such as Daniel Farber, are unable to defend the actions of Lincoln, admitting that some of his actions were unconstitutional.
You are still trying to provide evidence that Davis violated the Constitution. So far, you have not been able to provide any evidence at all.
Your extraordinarily intellectual comments summon a comparison to Judith Butler, a Guggenheim Fellowship-winning professor of rhetoric and comparative literature at the University of California at Berkeley, admired by some as "one of the ten smartest people on the planet." Professor Butler wrote the following in Further Reflections on the Conversations of Our Time, an article in the scholarly journal Diacritics (1997):
"The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power. "
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.