Posted on 04/12/2007 9:34:54 AM PDT by TexConfederate1861
No, they were only fighting against the Democrats' misinterpretation of the Constitution.
The Constitution never spoke of slaves as property.
Despite John C. Calhoun's delusions, the Constitution never guaranteed slave states a control of the national government.
Actually, My Confederate Ancestor bought 2500 Acres in North Texas on a handshake........
The recognition was their first duty, that is true, but I believe the CSA would have done the honorable thing....
In your opinion....of course.
“I believe the CSA would have done the honorable thing....”
In your opinoin....of course.
That is true also.
“Despite John C. Calhoun’s delusions, the Constitution never guaranteed slave states a control of the national government.”
Please show me where Calhoun EVER thought that it did.
Now, that being said, I know that he advocated AMENDING the Constitution to have two Presidents, a Northern & Southern, each with Veto power.............
DECISION.
Ex Parte.......................} Before the Chief Justice of the
.....................................} Supreme Court of the United
John Merryman.........} States at Chambers.
I added dots to preserve the spacing of the original. At Chambers rulings are rulings of the Justice as a Justice of the Supreme Court. The signature on the ruling is "R. B. Taney, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court"
Go back and read the decision again. Better yet, read a book like "Lincoln and Chief Justice Taney: Slavery, Secession, and the President's War Powers" by James Simon for a short but more than adequate overview of the case. Chief Justice Taney was acting in his position as head of the Circuit Court that included Baltimore. His ruling was issued from that bench, not the Supreme Court bench. A single justice cannot speak for the entire court, and the entire court never took up the case.
"An audience of some two thousand people assembled on the following day to witness the outcome of the struggle between the Chief Justice and the military authorities. Leaving the Campbell home in the company of his grandson, Taney remarked that he might be imprisoned in Fort McHenry before night, but he was going to court to do his duty. As he took his place he announced that he acted alone rather than with Judge Giles because of the fact that he was sitting not as a member of the circuit court, but as Chief Justice of the United States. One reason for the distinction, undoubtedly, was the belief that it would lent added weight to the decision."
“he announced” Roger Taney was a Democrat and was lying. He acted a a circuit court judge in the case.
Sorry Partisan. I’ll take Taney’s word for what he was doing rather than your speculation.
The word of Democrats - Taney, Clinton, Obama, etc. — must be Gospel to you.
"After issuing his decree to Cadwalader on the 28th, Taney began writing the judicial opinion that he had promised to send to President Lincoln for immediate action. As was his habit, he reworked the opinion over several drafts to make his point with the utmost force and accuracy. When he was finished, Taney wrote at the top of the first page that the case was "Before the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States at Chambers," in an obvious effort to call attention to the authority of his office, though, in fact, he was acting in his capacity as a circuit court judge.
By this time Taney had been on the Supreme Court for almost 25 years and certainly knew which bench he was presiding from.
Well then you would have no problems with the real estate deal I proposed? I'll be fair. I promise.
I see no reason to believe that. To date they had seized whatever they wanted with no payment, they had walked away from responsibility for the debt without discussion, they were willing to go to war to acquire Sumter. If they didn't see any of those as dishonorable acts then why should we believe that they would have a sudden change of heart and pay for anything? Wouldn't an offer to do so be an admission that their earlier actions had been wrong?
General Wilkinson, the military commander in New Orleans. He blocked the delivery of Swartwout's writ from the territorial judge, then transfered Swartwout as a prisoner beyond the judge's jurisdiction. The Supreme Court ruled that Swartwout and Bollman had a right to this writ because its suspension was not constitutionally enacted. It is actually a very similar case to the 2004 Gitmo ruling, where the court found that habeas corpus had not been constitutionally suspended even though it was being denied.
Different people at different times - mostly executive branch officials though.
1807 - General Wilkinson, commander in New Orleans, who blocked Swartwout's writ (found unconstitutional)
1866 - The military tribunal that tried Milligan (found unconstitutional)
1942 - The military tribunal and DoJ that blocked Quirin's petition for a writ (upheld for reason of expediency in a WWII emergency, but the Quirin case is almost universally considered to be bad case law today)
2004 - The Bush administration by detaining Hamdi (found unconstitutional without Congressional approval)
2006 - The Bush administration and Congress (found unconstitutional because habeas was not properly suspended in the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 for cases already pending and directed them to rectify this)
2006 - Congress, which suspended habeas corpus for enemy combattants at Gitmo in the Military Commissions Act. (found constitutional by the D.C. Court of appeals and affirmed by the Supreme Court in early 2007 in Boumediene v. Bush).
care for a "do over"????
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.