Posted on 11/26/2005 9:36:29 PM PST by Mier
While all the anti war cowards were screaming for Bush to cut and run and our willing accomplice main stream media acting like kids in a candy store. I heard someone on talk radio say that during the civil war Lincoln had his media detracters thrown in the bottom of a war ship until the war was over. But I can't find any facts on-line to back it up. Does any one know where I might go to find information on this? I mentioned this to a (left wing co-worker) and he thinks I made it up. I sure would like to prove him wrong! Any information on this would be greatly appreciated.
free dixie,sw
I am quite sure that you know th difference between importing slaves from AFRICA, and slaves from the US. Big difference. Since the US forbade African Imported slaves, then the others would be a "domestic" import of slaves.
(not African)
Sounds like a good idea. Free speech is not absolute in wartime.
a simple reading of the FIRST AMENDMENT should disabuse you of that FALLACY.
free dixie,sw
No, I don't believe I do. Imports are imports regardless of the foreign country they originate from. The confederacy considered the U.S. a foreign country. Their constitution specifically protected imports of slaves from that country. Are you now admitting that this is true?
Why is it obvious? "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." It doesn't say that only congress can suspend it. It doesn't say that the president cannot suspend it. It doesn't say at all. It is in Article I which generally lays out the powers of Congress, but it is in Section 9 which also places restrictions on states and U.S. citizens. So for you to claim that it is so clear that it need no interpretation is ridiculous. It is like having the Supreme Court rule on whether the sky is blue. The Supreme Court has never ruled on that, so according to you it is not decided, and thus I can't have an opinion.
And here I thought you last line was ridiculous. The Supreme has not ruled that the sky is blue because that is not a constitutional matter. Duh.
Not in my interpretation or that of others. I'll take the words of the founders and of Chief Justice John Marshall in Ex parte Bollman and Swartwout over Abraham Lincoln's naked power grab any day. More's the pity that you can't.
I'll agree that many learned legal scholars and judicial leaders, and in no way do I include you in that description, believe that only Congress can suspend habeas corpus. And if they were sitting on the Supreme Court at a time when that matter came before the court then I think we can predict how they would probably rule. But they are one voice on the court, and the matter has never come before the court. Speculating on whether the court would rule that the president cannot suspend habeas corpus is only that, speculation. It is not law. Can you tell the difference?
If the founders had wanted to give the president the power to suspend clauses in the Constitution, they would have made it plainly clear.
If the founders had thought that the Constitution did not need interpretation then they wouldn't have specified a Supreme Court with jurisdiction over matters pertaining to the Constitution. Now would they?
What guarantee of our liberties would the Constitution be if a president could suspend it or any clause in it at will?
The President cannot suspend habeas corpus at will. Neither can Congress. It can only be done in cases of rebellion or invasion, when the public safety requires it. The president and congress cannot suspend any clause unless the Constitution gives them that power.
... but I only see anarchy and dictatorship arising from having no checks on executive power.
Kind of like the confederacy under Davis? There were no checks on his executive power that he felt bound to recognize. He said so himself.
Thanks for the link. Burton's book says there were four channels into the harbor. The main ship channel appears relatively straight on the map in Burton. The Swash Channel also looks to be straight in Burton's map. The channel along Sullivan Island was reputed to have been tricky -- it was a major route of the blockade runners and would have had the protection of the Confederate guns on Sullivan Island.
I found the name of a fourth channel in an 1825 map in Mills' Atlas of the State of South Carolina. The name of this fourth channel appears to be "12 C Channel," as best I can make out. It appears to give a straighter shot into the harbor than the main ship channel, but it did contain some slight turns. The entrance to the 12 C Channel was marked with a buoy according to the old map. The Mills' Atlas also shows patches of the offshore sandbars, but I image the locations of those changed with time. I don't know if the 12 C Channel was the fourth channel that Burton mentioned.
The Mills' Atlas said there were three channels to Charleston harbor. It describes them this way: "The main or South Channel has sixteen feet of water at ebb tide. The middle or direct channel has fourteen feet of water, but the North Channel is very shallow. This city has the best ship channel and harbor on the Atlantic coast, between the Chesapeake Bay and the Cape of Florida, excepting Beaufort, on Port Royal Island." The 12 C Channel would have been the so-called middle or direct channel.
The Star of the West reportedly "steamed" up the main channel to within a mile of Fort Sumter, where it turned around after being shot at by Confederate forces after it entered South Carolina's territorial waters. It scraped bottom several times on the way out to the ocean. I wonder what our history would have been if the Star with its hundreds of armed troops hiding below deck had gotten stuck on one of those sandbars on its way out.
Sorry, I forgot I was dealing with the Kansas anti-Mensa here. It was obvious enough to all those founders I quoted above. What would they know, right?
The Supreme has not ruled that the sky is blue because that is not a constitutional matter.
Do I have to explain analogy to you too? Oh, that's right. Must talk slowly.
If a Supreme Court were to rule that the President had the right to suspend habeas corpus, I would feel like Galileo saying "E si muove!" (Still, it moves!) after being forced by the Inquisition to recant his proofs that the earth moved around the sun.
Speculating on whether the court would rule that the president cannot suspend habeas corpus is only that, speculation. It is not law. Can you tell the difference?
Ex Parte Merryman still stands. Lincoln could have appealed the ruling against him. He is the one who thumbed his nose at the law.
If the founders had thought that the Constitution did not need interpretation then they wouldn't have specified a Supreme Court with jurisdiction over matters pertaining to the Constitution. Now would they?
If the founders had wanted to grant the power to suspend the writ of the privilege of the writ to the executive, they would have done so clearly, given how much of a departure it was from previous law. Now wouldn't they?
The President cannot suspend habeas corpus at will. Neither can Congress. It can only be done in cases of rebellion or invasion, when the public safety requires it. The president and congress cannot suspend any clause unless the Constitution gives them that power.
The only way the President can legitimately have that power is if Congress gives it to him. If Lincoln truly had the power, then he wouldn't have needed to cite an 1863 law by Congress giving him the power to suspend habeas corpus. Now would he?
Kind of like the confederacy under Davis? There were no checks on his executive power that he felt bound to recognize. He said so himself.
No. Like the Presidency under Lincoln. Davis got approval from Congress before suspending habeas corpus. Lincoln, on the other hand, didn't have that approval in the early part of the war. Now did he?
I don't believe they looked at it the way YOU say they did.
Otherwise they wouldn't have banned the African trade.
If they looked at the way that YOU say they did then why didn't they flat out ban all imports from all sources under all circumstances?
Do they even have Mensa in the south? Is there any demand for it?
Sorry, I forgot I was dealing with the Kansas anti-Mensa here. It was obvious enough to all those founders I quoted above. What would they know, right?
And if they had had a chance to rule on the matter then they may have ruled against Lincoln or any other president who suspended it. But they didn't. The entire Surpeme Court never did. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?
Do I have to explain analogy to you too? Oh, that's right. Must talk slowly.
When you resort to really, really stupid analogies then yes.
If a Supreme Court were to rule that the President had the right to suspend habeas corpus, I would feel like Galileo saying "E si muove!" (Still, it moves!) after being forced by the Inquisition to recant his proofs that the earth moved around the sun.
But in the end the President would have the right to suspend habeas corpus, regardless of whether you agree or not. Because the Supreme Court will have ruled he can.
Ex Parte Merryman still stands. Lincoln could have appealed the ruling against him. He is the one who thumbed his nose at the law.
He did not, and Merryman isn't in jail. But only the Supreme Court can rule on the Constitutionality of the issue. Or haven't you ever read the Constitution?
If the founders had wanted to grant the power to suspend the writ of the privilege of the writ to the executive, they would have done so clearly, given how much of a departure it was from previous law. Now wouldn't they?
If the founders wanted to give the southern states the right to unilaterally secede then they would have done so clearly, given how much it differs from the other articles of the Constitution. Now wouldn't they?
The only way the President can legitimately have that power is if Congress gives it to him. If Lincoln truly had the power, then he wouldn't have needed to cite an 1863 law by Congress giving him the power to suspend habeas corpus. Now would he?
Not if he had the power to begin with. Now would he? The Constitution doesn't say that he didn't.
No. Like the Presidency under Lincoln. Davis got approval from Congress before suspending habeas corpus. Lincoln, on the other hand, didn't have that approval in the early part of the war. Now did he?
He didn't need it, or so he believed. And the Supreme Court has never said he was wrong in believing that. And the suspension power is not absolute, as the court pointed out. Unlike in the confederacy.
Simple: Because they had to replenish slaves from somewhere, and the United States together with the Confederate States, had plenty.
My family, all of whom are Southerners and decendants of Confederate soldiers, could probably form its own section, though I don't think anybody has bothered to apply.
But only the Supreme Court can rule on the Constitutionality of the issue.
You are forgetting all the rulings of the 9th Circus and other federal courts about Constitutional issues.
From this site: non-seq is wrong again
Role of the Federal CourtsOften called the "guardians of the Constitution," the federal courts exist to fairly and impartially interpret and apply the law, resolve disputes and, perhaps most importantly, to protect the rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. The courts do not "make" the laws. The Constitution delegates making, amending and repealing federal laws to the U.S. Congress.
Notice that it says "courts" not "court." The Supreme Court gets involved if a ruling is appealed to them. Otherwise the ruling of the lower court stands even if it is a ruling on the constitutionality of an issue.
In Merryman's case, Lincoln chose not to appeal the ruling (he'd have surely lost, IMNSHO) and just ignored it. The ruling stands.
Here is an example of a plaintiff's plea to a District Court: "This is necessary to promote the policy of guaranteeing to citizens the opportunity to ensure that no governmental body impairs or defeats the Constitution of the United States, the purpose of legislation establishing a public right, relevant statutory enactments, or the common law."
District Courts can rule on constitutionality. They can be overruled by the Supreme Court, or not, as the case may be. If they are not overruled, their ruling stands, like that of Ex Parte Merryman.
Not if he had the power to begin with. Now would he? The Constitution doesn't say that he didn't.
What are you smoking? The only rights and powers not designated in the Constitution are those reserved to the people or the states. The Constitution doesn't say that the President can pass laws by himself either. Does that mean he can? (You've been staying at a Holiday Inn Express, haven't you?)
But if the Circuit Court declares something to be Constitutional then how can the Supreme Court rule that they were wrong? Perhaps it's because the Constitution gives only the Supreme Court that power? Huh? Ya think? The circuit court may rule on the legality of the issue but their opinion can be tossed right out the window if the Supreme Court decides differently. Since there is no court higher than the Supreme Court then I guess that means that their word on what is constitutional and what is not is the final one.
What are you smoking? The only rights and powers not designated in the Constitution are those reserved to the people or the states. The Constitution doesn't say that the President can pass laws by himself either. Does that mean he can?
What an idiotic question. The Constitution says that all legislative power is vested in Congress, which you would know if you had ever read it. So of course the President cannot pass laws by himself, any more than a single justice can decide the constitutionality of an issue. But the Constitution does not say that only congess can suspend habeas corpus. It only gives the conditions under which it can be suspended, not who can do the suspending.
By an appeal to the Supreme Court. As I remember, there are only a few state-vs-state sorts of things or the like that go directly to the Supreme Court. All else comes to them by appeal.
What an idiotic question. The Constitution says that all legislative power is vested in Congress, which you would know if you had ever read it. So of course the President cannot pass laws by himself, any more than a single justice can decide the constitutionality of an issue.
Idiotic, huh? All legislative power is vested in Congress. So how come Lincoln did things that were clearly Congress's responsibility under the Constitution? Lincoln violated the Constitution in so doing and no amount of Bill Clintoning you do can get around that fact. But you'll keep trying, eh? You're a regular Energizer Lincoln.
But the Constitution does not say that only congess can suspend habeas corpus. It only gives the conditions under which it can be suspended, not who can do the suspending.
The Constitution does not grant the power to suspend habeas corpus to the president. Show me where it does and where it give the president the power to take over duties of the other branches of government, i.e., usurp the responsibilities of Congress and the courts.
As James Madison, Father of the Constitution said 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.
Am I to take it that you are for tyranny? Scratch that question -- I already know the answer.
No, but a Constitutional amendment is different from just another bill, and the politics would vary dependent on the makeup of the Congress at the time. With all of the other pressing issues facing him, it hard to imagine the newly elected President Lincoln trying to lead such an effort.
As you said, he pushed for preservation of the Union ahead of most things.
Too bad the South didn't feel even half as strongly about preserving the Union as Lincoln did.
If an amendment guaranteeing permanent slavery accomplished that and brought states back into the Union, then he wouldn't have needed to initiate war or be the oppressive tyrant.
It seems to me that the criticism of Lincoln was just a little premature and excessive. If the southern States had waited to see what Lincoln would do as President before starting their rebellion, things might have been different also.
The fact is the lower South chose Disunion months before Lincoln was sworn into office, citing oppression and tyranny from the North as their reason. This after having won in Federal court [Dred Scott] and legislatively in Congress [Fugitive Slave Law].
Thanks for your comments.
I'll have to get back to you in a couple of days. I need to finish writing a scientific paper first. My deadline approaches.
Some time ago I found some interesting Southern reactions to Lincoln's election in one of the old newspapers. I've never posted them. I'll try to find them again.
Mac:
Though I do agree in hindsight, that "waiting would have been the better course, you must remember that there were many more factors, that pushed the South to act.
1. Agitation by abolitionist had become out of control.
2. Nat Turner Uprising, as well as several reputed uprisings, well poisonings, etc. for which Northern "Black" Republicans were blamed. The South & North had grown far apart. Lincoln was simply the spark that ignited the gasoline.......
With all of the other pressing issues facing him, it hard to imagine the newly elected President Lincoln trying to lead such an effort.
I wish I had paid more attention to the previous threads where this was discussed. If memory serves me right, there was some evidence (weak, strong, I don't remember) that he worked with others to promote the amendment. Some congress-critter took the lead for the amendment in Congress.
Too bad the South didn't feel even half as strongly about preserving the Union as Lincoln did.
They felt their interests were better served outside of the Union. The Union had failed in their eyes and the Constitution was being flaunted by the North. The great compromise that permitted the South and North to join together in the first place was in grave danger.
Here are some excerpts of a couple of Texas opinions of the times.
They Cry Peace, Peace, When There is no Peace (Austin State Gazette, November 24, 1860)
Under the conservative administration of James Buchanan, armed fanatics invaded the State of Virginia. Under the same administration, efforts have been made to lay waste the fairest portions of Texas, and to expel or murder its present inhabitants. In partial execution of this fiendish conspiracy, several towns have been burned, and millions of property destroyed. If such outrages can be perpetrated under such a President, would not every home in the South stand in constant danger from the abolitionist incendiary under the Government of Lincoln. Would our wives and little ones enjoy the sweet comforts of peace, and the blessed repose of security? Submission to Lincoln would give us no peace, but would subject us to a reign of terror more horrible than any war.
You may remember that the state of Texas had experienced a rash of town burings in the summer of 1860 alleged to have been done by abolitionists, some of whom apparently confessed.
Gallant Sentiment (about a speech in Houston reported in the Houston Telegraph as reported in the Austin State Gazette November 17, 1860)
Captain Baylor, the Indian fighter, was introduced to the audience, and in a few words defined his position in the event of Lincoln’s election, to the entire satisfaction of every person present. The Captain lives on the frontier; has for the last five years been engaged in its defense from marauding Indians, and has never yet received a dollar for his services from either State or Federal Government. He can speak for himself and for the frontier people; and, as he says for himself, the Union is not worth preserving, for it has failed to secure the frontier settlers a guarantee of life, liberty or prosperity. In the event of Lincoln’s election he was for immediate secession, and should no other State join in the movement, he was for again hoisting the Lone Star flag, and Texas lighting on its own hook. Captain Baylor’s platform, as enunciated by himself, in so many words, is, "The election of Breckenridge and Lane, and preservation in the Union; or their defeat and secession, and the total extirpation of abolitionists and Indians."
It seems to me that the criticism of Lincoln was just a little premature and excessive. If the southern States had waited to see what Lincoln would do as President before starting their rebellion, things might have been different also.
I've made the same argument myself. However, the majority of the people of the South didn't see it that way.
Waiting for Overt Acts. (From the Waco South West as reported in the State Gazette, Nov 17, 1860, paragraph and line breaks mine)
In the event of Lincoln’s election, would any respectable portion of the Southern people be so wanting in self respect, as to wait for an overt act before raising the arm of resistance against him and his armed bands of Wide Awakes.
Wait for overt acts, says Gov. Wise. Have not Southern men overt acts enough pressing upon their endurances?
Is the long secession of overt acts by which State after State at the North has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law
– is the constant inroad on our border, which hurries off every year property valued at hundreds of thousands on underground railroads
– is the constant invasion of incendiary appeals
– is the extension of fanaticism in our borders
– is the invasion with Sharp’s rifles, provided by the Emigrant Aid Societies, under the patronage and countenance of State authorities
– is the Harper’s Ferry Raid of John Brown
– is the recent squatter sovereignty burning of towns and poisoning of cattle, and midnight conspiracy to depopulate Northern Texas
– are not all of these overt acts, sufficiently imperative on Southern watchfulness, Southern self preservation, Southern honor, to awake Southern resistance to further aggression.
… Ah sirs! wait for another overt act, wait for another raid if you dare! And the next raid that comes upon you will not be a John Brown raid. It will not be led by one poor old fanatic, assisted by one handful of desperate or deluded followers scantily equipped and blindly advised. It will be a raid of thousands – perhaps tens of thousands of trained Wide-Awakes.
I was surprised at how immediately the South reacted to Lincoln's election. Here are some excerpts showing how the South responded to the threat of the Wide Awakes after Lincoln's election. As you may remember, the Wide Awakes were marching in huge numbers in Northern cities. The South saw them as a threat and started forming their own group to oppose them.
The Minute Men Forming in the South (From the Charleston Mercury as reported in the Austin State Gazette, Nov 17, 1860)
We are glad to see the people of our State everywhere preparing for the crisis which is at hand. As an offset to the "Wide-Awakes," of the North, "Minute Men" are organizing in the principal districts of South Carolina. Their object is to form an armed body of men, and join with our fellow citizens, now forming in this and our Sister States as "Minute Men," whose duty is to arm, equip, and drill, and be ready for any emergency that may arise in the present perilous position of the southern States. In Kershaw, Abbeville and Richland Districts the organization is already complete and powerful, embracing the flower of youth, and led on by the most influential citizens. The badge adopted is a blue rosette – two and a half inches in diameter, with a military button in the centre, to be worn upon the side of the hat. Let the important work go bravely on, and let every son of Carolina prepare to mount the blue cockade.
Austin State Gazette, Nov 17, 1860
Two fine military companies have been formed at Waco, to defend the state against Lincoln. The gallant young border men of Hill have raised a large company. The chivalry of Grimes have organized themselves into a company called the Lone Star Chaseurs. The young ladies of Anderson are preparing a splendid banner for the company.
A military company has been formed in Bowie.
Unfurl the Lone Star of Texas Independence (State Gazette, Nov 17, 1860)
The Lone Star Flag of Texas was hoisted in Galveston, in Hemstead, and in Navisota, and a Declaration of Independence was in circulation in the city Houston.
There is a call in the Telegraph signed by 228 of the most prominent citizens, for a mass meeting of the citizens of Harris county, to consult on measures that should be adopted in view of the election of Abraham Lincoln. …
The same honored flag which waved at San Jacinto has been flung from the tallest flag staff in the city.
From the Houston Telegraph (Extra), Nov. 14, 1860, as reported in the Austin State Gazette, November 24, 1860
Charleston, Nov 10 (Special Dispatch to the N. O. Delta)
Intense excitement continues to prevail throughout this city. Everybody is making preparations to resist all attempts on the part of the North to encroach upon the Constitutional rights of the South. The Palmetto flag is still being hoisted.
A large crowd assembled to-day and marched to the arsenal with the intention of removing the arms deposited there to Fort Moultrie, but they were unsuccessful in their attempt. The excitement is growing more intense, and resistance meetings are to be held in different parts of the State.
Columbia, Nov. 9. … Eight thousand minute men are drilling tonight.
Columbia, Nov. 10. …Senator Chesnut has resigned his seat in the U. S. Senate.
Augusta [Georgia], Nov. 10. Meetings are being held throughout the State of Georgia, for the formation of a minute corps; a meeting is called in this city for to-night a which decisive measures for the secession of Georgia will be adopted, A Military State Convention is to be held on Tuesday next, at Millsville.
A delegation of South Carolina is visiting Georgia. Several hundred thousand men are already enrolled at the South, and the enrollments are still in progress.
There is great stringency in money matters in Virginia, and no sales of land or slaves.
The banks in Virginia are virtually closed.
Washington, Nov. 10. In official quarters no apprehensions exist that further seizures of forts or public property will take place in the South.
[rustbucket note: "further seizures"? What was seized before this point in time, early November 1860?]
Galveston, Nov. 13. The organization of several military companies in this city is now going on. The enrollment of members is large, and an election of officers will take place at an early day.
A mass meeting of the citizens, irrespective of parties, will take place to-night, to consider the position of the South relative to the late Presidential election, and to recommend an immediate organization, to meet pending or future contingencies.
Additional Dispatches Montgomery [Alabama], Nov. 10. Our military companies are fully armed and equipped, and have tendered their services to the Governor.
Our citizens are unanimous for disunion. The city of Mobile opposes secession, but the country districts are in favor of disunion. Minute men are rapidly organizing. Thirty thousand will be enrolled by the first of January.
Columbia South Carolinian On last evening, the organization of Minute Men of Richmond marched in torch light procession through the principal streets of the city. There were about three hundred in ranks, making a very imposing and brilliant display. They each wore a red scarf, with the letters M. M. printed on it. It is designed as an institution for the preservation of the interests and institutions of the South and the formation of a southern Confederacy.Augusta [Georgia], Nov. 8. A large and enthusiastic meeting was held to-night for the formation of a club of minute men. Spirited addresses were made and a large number of men enrolled.
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.