It Is A. P. Hill FROM HARPERS FERRY

woodpusher: "The 1858 Veterans' Benefits law sticks a plug in your verbal diarrhea that the United States government never recognized the existence of the Confederacy.
You cannot have veterans of something whose existence is denied, much less such veterans entitled to a Federal pension by United States Federal law."

[BroJoeK] Well... first, I'm most interested to learn more about that 1858 Veterans' Benefit law.

Yes, you are now interested in learning about anything but the 1958 law that defined Confederate soldiers and sailors as veterans of the Civil War and granted lifetime veterans' benefits to wives and children for the veteran's military service in that war, with the benefits being granted on an equal basis with benefits for Union service and in an equal amount.

[BroJoeK] Second, nobody, not even President Lincoln ever denied the existence of "combinations" in insurrection & rebellion against the United States.

To the contrary, in his proclamation of April 15, 1861, Lincoln affirmatively proclaimed that the law was being opposed by combinations of persons (not States).

That proclaims a civil disturbance, not an insurrection against the federal government, and certainly did not proclaim the United States to be in a state of war with "combinations of persons," a patent impossibility.

The U.S. Supreme Court considered that proclamation and found:

It is to be observed that the proclamation of April 15, 1861, was not a distinct recognition of an existing state of war. The President had power to recognize it, The Prize Cases, supra; but he did not prior to his second proclamation, that of April 19, in which he announced the blockade.

In one case Lincoln ordered combinations of persons to peacefully disperse and retire to their abodes within 20 days; just 4 days later, he proclaimed to the world that there was an insurrection against the United States Government in 7 States, and that was initiating an international blockade against those 7 States.

In the proclamation of April 19, 1861 Lincoln proclaimed to the world that,

an insurrection against the Government of the United States has broken out

He declared an international blockade against the States involved. As previously noted, Lincoln did not issue his proclamation in ignorance of the law, or its effects. Lincoln was a lawyer, and the issue was debated in the cabinet. On April 11, 1865, when the war was almost over, the U.S. Government announced a closing of the ports. At the time of this proclamation, Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles said: "This was a step which I had earnestly pressed at the beginning of the rebellion, as a domestic measure, and more legitimate than a blockade, which was international, and an admission that we were two nations." Lincoln made a considered judgment that the benefits of a blockade outweighed the cost of it being an international act.

Four years later, on April 11, 1865, Lincoln changed that to proclaim a domestic closing of the ports.

Whereas, by my Proclamations of the nineteenth ... the ports ... in the States of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas, were declared to be subject to blockade; but whereas the said blockade has, in consequence of actual military occupation by this Government....
Now, therefore, be it known, that I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, do hereby proclaim that the ports ... are hereby closed....

After the Union regained control of the area, he changed the blockade to a closing of the ports, a domestic act.

[BroJoeK] But neither Lincoln, nor Congress, nor the Supreme Court ever recognized the pretend Confederacy as a legitimate country.

And neither did I claim that. You just love to proclaim your strawman and argue against that. Your claim is irrelevant because the Confederacy was recognized as a lawful belligerent, and thereafter the military of the two parties engaged in lawful war.

By his proclamation of April 19, 1861 Lincoln recognized the Confederate States of America as a lawful belligerent power and the de facto government of the confederate territory. He proclaimed to the world that the United States was in a state of war with the Confederate States by announcing a blockade. A blockade is an act taken against another nation or belligerent power. The United States cannot blockade the United States. A blockade is an act of war proclaimed to all other nations of the world. Other nations took notice and proclaimed neutrality between the warring parties.

[BroJoeK] Nor did Congress ever pay pensions to living Confederate veterans. In 1958 Congress allowed for pensions to Confederate widows & children -- seemed like a decent thing to do.
Sure, the Federal government fully acknowledges the existence of such gangster groups as the mafia, and does not deny social security payments to their wives & children, if eligible.
But it has never acknowledged -- despite your own desperate claims -- the legitimacy of either the mafia or the CSA, period.

Did the Federal Government ever provide retirement benefits to the wives and children of veterans of the Mafia, in recognition of the gangster's time served in the Mafia? Not to mention, did they make determinations on an equal basis with service in law enforcement, and in the same amount, in recognition of service in the Mafia?

Do you realize how ridiculous your argument is?

As documented, by Public Law 85-424, 72 Stat. 133 (1858) states:

The term “Civil War veteran” includes a person who served in the military or naval forces of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War, and the term “active military or naval service” includes active service in those forces.

Current Federal law at 38 U.S. Code § 1501 states:

The term “Civil War veteran” includes a person who served in the military or naval forces of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War, and the term “active military or naval service” includes active service in those forces.

That you don't like that does not change it.

You would conflate criminal service in the Mafia with honorable service in the armed forces.

121 posted on 10/05/2020 3:15:04 PM PDT by woodpusher

woodpusher: "In discussing the official start date of the Civil War, we are not discussing your battle with your diet."

[BroJoeK #120] But the SCOTUS ruling you refer to only set a CW start date for purposes of that particular legal case.

That is pure, utter bullshit. Does the holding in Roe v. Wade only apply to the case of Jane Roe? Does the holding in Obergefell apply only to Mr. Obergefell?

And this specific date was not found by the U.S. Supreme Court once, but repeatedly in a series of cases. For just two examples,

The precise dates, and the precise events, of the start and end of the civil war was addressed by the United States Supreme Court in the case of The Protector, 79 U.S. 700 (1870).

It is necessary, therefore, to refer to some public act of the political departments of the government to fix the dates, and, for obvious reasons, those of the executive department which may be and in fact was, at the commencement of hostilities, obliged to act during the recess of Congress, must be taken.
The proclamation of intended blockade by the President may therefore be assumed as marking the first of these dates, and the proclamation that the war had closed as marking the second. But the war did not begin or close at the same time in all the states. There were two proclamations of intended blockade: the first of the 19th of April, 1861, embracing the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas; the second of the 27th of April, 1861, embracing the States of Virginia and North Carolina; and there were two proclamations declaring that the war had closed, one issued on the 2d of April, 1866, embracing the States of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Mississippi, Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana, and Arkansas, and the other issued on the 20th of August, 1866, embracing the State of Texas.

In Brown v Hiatts, 82 U.S. 177 (1872) the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the matter again.

Opinion of the Court at 183-185:

It was held in the case of The Protector that the war began in that State at the date of the proclamation of intended blockade of her ports by the President. That was the first public act of the executive in which the existence of war in that State was officially recognized, and to its date the courts therefore look as the commencement of the war.

You would have a state of war officially recognized between the United States and another belligerent power not recognized to exist.

It was hardly ONE case. For additional citations regarding suspension of the Statute of Limitations during the Civil War see USCSA Supp (1917) pg. 160:

United States Compiled Statutes Annotated, Supplement 1917, West Publishing Co., 1918; pg. 160:

Effect of Civil War on suspension of limitations—The statute of limitations ceased to run during the Civil War. Batesville Institute v. Kauffman (1873) 85 U. S. (18 Wall.) 151, 21 L. Ed. 775; Eddins v. Graddy (1873) 28 Ark. 500; Hall v. Denckla, Id. 506; Randolph v. Ward (1874) 29 Ark. 238; Hodges v. Taylor (1890) 13 S.W. 129; Coleman v. Holmes (1870) 44 Ala. 124, 4 Am. Rep. 121; Ellis v. Atlantic & G. R. Co. (1878) 61 Ga. 362; Gwyn v. Porter (1871) 52 Tenn. (5 Heisk.) 253; Yancy v. Yancy, Id. 353, 13 Am. Rep. 5; Harrison v. Henderson (1872) 54 Tenn. (7 Heisk.) 315; Neely v. Luster, Id. 354; Kilpatrick v. Brashear (1873) 57 Tenn. (10 Heisk.) 372; Marks v. Borum (1873) 60 Tenn. (1 BaxL) 87, 25 Am. Rep. 764; Pack v. Buck (1873) 62 Tenn. (3 Baxt.) 71; Brewis v. Lawson (1881) 76 Va. 36; Updike’s Adm’r v. Lane (1883) 78 Va. 132; Cole’s Adm’r v. Ballard (1883) 78 Va. 139; Davis v. Tebbs (1886) 81 Va. 600; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Faulkner (1870) 4 W. Va. 180; Pitzer v. Burns (1873) 7 W. Va. 63; Hale v. Pack's Ex’rs (1877) 10 W. Va. 145.
The Civil War suspended the running of the statute of limitations between citizens of the belligerents. Hanger v. Abbott (1867) 73 U. S. (6 Wall.) 532, 18 L. Ed. 939; The Protector (1869) 9 Wall. 687, 19 L. Ed. 812; Levy v. Stewart (1870) 78 U. S. (11 Wall.) 244, 20 L. Ed. 86; Brown v. Hiatt (C. C. 1870) Fed. Cas. No. 2,011, affirmed Same v. Hiatts (1872) 82 U. S. (15 Wall.) 177, 21 L. Ed. 128; Brown v. Hiatts (1872) 82 U. S. (15 Wall.) 177, L. Ed. 128; Bird v. Louisiana State Bank (1876) 93 U. S. 96, 23 L. Ed. 818; Opie v. Castleman (D. C. 1887) 32 Fed. 511; Chappelle v. Olney (C. C. 1870) Fed. Cas. No. 2,613; Gooding v. Varn (C. C. 1869) Fed. Cas. No. 5,539; Jackson Ins. Co. v. Stewart (C. C. 1866) Fed. Cas. No. 7,152; Sierra v. U. S. (1873) 9 Ct. Cl. 224; Green v. U. S. (1881) 17 Ct. Ck 174; Metropolitan Nat Bank v. Gordon (1872) 28 Ark. 115; Worthington’s Adm’r v. De Bardlekin (1878) 33 Ark. 651; Stiles v. Easley (1869) 51 Ill. 275; Perkins v. Rogers (1871) 35 Ind. 124, 9 Am. Rep. 639; Selden v. Preston (1875) 74 Ky. (11 Bush) 191; Sharp v. Morris (1883) 4 Ky. Law Rep. (abstract) 732; Aby v.Brigham (1876) 28 La. Ann. 840; McMerty v. Morrison (1876) 62 Mo. 140; Hammond v. Johnston (1887) 93 Mo. 198, 6 S. W. 83; Brewis v. Lawson (1881) 76 Va. 36; Ahnert v. Zaun (1876) 40 WiB. 622.
The principle that state statutes of limitation did not run during the Civil War applies to suits between persons in different states of the late so-called Confederate States, as much as to suits between citizens of loyal states and citizens of the Confederate States. Ross v. Jones (1874 ) 89 U. 8. (22 Walk) 576, 22 L. Ed. 730.

The courts had to decide the start and end date for EACH such case. The U.S. Supreme Court issued a definitive controlling precedent for ALL jurisdictions.

[BroJoeK #120] Indeed, the ruling itself admitted that war started at different places on different dates, meaning the very definition of "war" is not just that particular ruling.

Of course, Lincoln proclaimed that an insurrection had begun in some States on one date, and on a later date Lincoln declared that other States had joined the insurrection on a subsequent date. The United States could not be at war with a State before it was determined to be in insurrection.

Your claim that that this affects the definition of war is ridiculous. For the United States, a state of war begins when the U.S. Government says it does. The U.S. Supreme Court held that Lincoln's proclamations initiated a state of war on April 19, 1861 against seven States; and on April 27, 1861 against Virginia and North Carolina.

The initiation of a state of war against the States of Virginia and North Carolina was not automatic at the wish of Jefferson Davis or BroJoeK. The definition of war required an act of the U.S. Government to initiate that state of war, just as any other. Lincoln provided that with his second proclamation of a blockade of those states.

woodpusher: "We are contrasting the opinions of an internet blogger with those of a renowned expert at international law.
The renowned expert states that

'Just as declaring a ‘war on poverty’ is not enough to justify engaging in unilateral military operations against those considered responsible for the problem, simply announcing a global ‘war on terror’ is as nonsensically inadequate a foundation to determine the existence of an armed conflict.'"

[BroJoeK #120] Nonsense, because what you're doing is taking a single SCOTUS ruling on one issue in commercial contract law, and applying that limited ruling to every question regarding the beginnings of Civil War.
I'm saying that doesn't work because words like "war" and "battle" can be legitimately applied to any number of situations and the fact remains that just as radical Democrats are at war against the United States today, so were they, even in December 1860.

One case, my ass. I linked, cited, and quoted multiple U.S. Supreme Court cases at my #110. You just don't like the holdings and choose to make believe there was only one case. There were thousands of cases. A sample of them is given above as cited in United States Compiled Statutes Annotated, Supplement 1917, West Publishing Co., 1918.

Words like war and battle can be used in a sense not applicable to a discussion of the U.S. Civil War. We are discussing the U.S. Civil War.

The New Oxford American Dictionary, 2nd ed.

war. a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different nations or states within a nation or state; a particular armed conflict.
a state of competition, conflict, or hostility between different people or groups
a sustained effort to deal with or end a particular unpleasant situation or condition

Black's Law Dictionary, 11th Ed.

war. (12c) 1. Hostile conflict by means of armed forces, carried on between countries, states, or rulers, or sometimes between political communities within the same country or state; a period of such conflict . • A state of war may also exist without armed conflict; for example, the treaty formally ending the World War II state of war between the United States and Japan was signed seven years after the fighting ended in 1945. Cf.
BATTLE.
“War is nothing but a duel on a larger scale. Countless duels go to make up war, but a picture of it as a whole can be formed by imagining a pair of wrestlers. Each tries through physical force to compel the other to do his will; his immediate aim is to throw his opponent in order to make him incapable of further resistance. War is thus an act of force to compel our enemy to do our will.” Carl von Clausewitz, On War 83 (1818; Michael Howard & Peter Paret trans., 1993).
civil war. (16c) An internal armed conflict between people of the same country; esp. (usu. cap.), the war from 1861 to 1865, resulting from the Confederate states’ attempted secession from the Union.
“[C]ivil wars [are] armed conflicts that (1) are fought between substate groups and their own government or amongst nonstate factions within a community, (2) are fought over political goals, (3) involve a level of violence that passes a threshold of severity, and (4) [create situations] in which each belligerent party has the ability to impose significant casualties on the other.” Jonathan Parry, “Civil War and Revolution,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Ethics of War 315, 315 (Seth Lazar & Helen Frowe eds., 2018).
2 A dispute or competition between adversaries {fare wars are common in the in the airline industry}. See PRICE WAR.
3 A struggle to solve a pervasive problem. {America's war against drugs}.

Unfortunately for your sad, pathetic argument, we are discussing the great American Civil War; an armed conflict; not a dispute between adversaries such as a price war; not a struggle to solve a pervasive problem such as the war against drugs, or the battle of your bulging waistline.

[BroJoeK #120] I'm a fan of Free Republic, I took some history courses and I don't much respect the pretensions of posters who claim to be so, so much smarter than me.

This discussion is not about who is smarter than the other. It is about who has the better grasp of history and the law. Fables from your imagination are not history. Perhaps your persistence in just making stuff up has fared better in the past. Conflating honorable military service with service in the Mafia is absurd. You view enemies or adversaries as evil. The men who served in the Confederate (or German) army were not evil. Fighting in the army did not make them criminals. The U.S. Government did not take prisoners of war in the war on drugs or the war on poverty. Jefferson Davis did not decide when the United States was in a state of war. The American Civil War served to toll the Statute of Limitations from the start date to the end date. It did not start in 1860.

122 posted on 10/05/2020 3:24:53 PM PDT by woodpusher

quoting BJK: "But neither Lincoln, nor Congress, nor the Supreme Court ever recognized the pretend Confederacy as a legitimate country."

woodpusher: "And neither did I claim that.
You just love to proclaim your strawman and argue against that."

Then I have "won" this argument and all your other posts on the subject are mere clouds of smoke intended to conceal your retreat from the main point: the United States never recognized the Confederacy as a legitimate government.

"De facto" or "lawful belligerent", or legalistic distinctions between a "blockade" and "port closing", or even small pensions paid to indigent widows & children 100 years later, do not add up to US recognition of the Confederacy as a legitimate government.

In 1958 it was estimated that up to 1,500 Confederate widows were still alive and possibly eligible for pensions.
The argument then which won the day had nothing to do with recognizing the Confederacy, but rather:

"...in The Evening Independent, then-Sen. Russell Long of Louisiana argued...: 'Wouldn’t you think Uncle Sam could afford to make one generous gesture after a hundred years?' "

That was all about reconciliation, nothing to do with legalistic recognition.

Here are two sites which debate the subject, one pro, the other con.
This site somewhat agrees that Confederate veterans received some benefits:

"Our Ruling:
Miller said: 'Confederate veterans were conferred with many of the same benefits of other United States military veterans by Acts of Congress back in 1929 and 1957.'
It is clear that, in the wake of the Civil War, Congress did not grant Confederate veterans the same benefits as other U.S. veterans.
Their pensions were doled out by state governments, they were unable to seek treatment from federal veteran’s hospitals, and they were not considered U.S. military veterans.
That started to shift in 1929, when Congress authorized the placement of federal headstones and markers on the graves of Confederate veterans, including those outside of national cemeteries.
When Congress decided to take over administration of pensions to Confederate veterans and their widows in 1958, only one veteran who may have qualified was still alive (his status as a Confederate veteran is disputed by historians).
Miller is right that Congress eventually afforded Confederate veterans many of the benefits awarded to other U.S. military veterans, but no qualifying veteran ever actually received aid from the federal government (outside the placement of headstones).

We rate this claim Mostly True."

And this site opposed:

"Our rating: False

The claim that Confederate veterans maintain the same legal status as U.S. veterans is FALSE.
Confederate veterans' widows and children received pensions after congressional action, but that action in itself did not declare those soldiers to be full U.S. veterans.
The very definition of a U.S. veteran never expanded to include Confederate soldiers –– even when they were granted amnesty by President Andrew Johnson."

woodpusher: "Current Federal law at 38 U.S. Code § 1501 states:
'The term “Civil War veteran” includes a person who served in the military or naval forces of the Confederate States' "
For purposes of that chapter, not for purposes of granting the CSA diplomatic recognition as a legitimate government of a legitimate country.

woodpusher: "Did the Federal Government ever provide retirement benefits to the wives and children of veterans of the Mafia, in recognition of the gangster's time served in the Mafia?
Not to mention, did they make determinations on an equal basis with service in law enforcement, and in the same amount, in recognition of service in the Mafia?
Do you realize how ridiculous your argument is?"

In 1958 Congress took over Southern state pension payments to an estimated 1,500 eligible widows of Confederate veterans.
It was intended to "afford one generous gesture after 100 years".
It was the equivalent of Congress taking over a Mafia pension plan and continuing to make payments to the dons' eligible widows.
It was also the equivalent to reinstating Social Security payments to widows of Mafiosos previously ruled ineligible.
Take your pick.

123 posted on 10/06/2020 5:24:03 AM PDT by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))

I read a book about Col. Wirz in HS. I don’t recall that he ever personally killed prisoners. In fact his crime was gross negligence , corruption and stealing supplies. The CSA quartermaster corps was corrupt to the marrow and Wirz was stealing the supplies meant for the camp and selling them on the black market. Maybe I am not remembering this correctly.....

124 posted on 10/06/2020 5:38:21 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn...)

To: woodpusher; OIFVeteran; Bull Snipe; rockrr

woodpusher quoting SCOTUS Protector 1870: "It is necessary, therefore, to refer to some public act of the political departments of the government to fix the dates, and, for obvious reasons..."

Not surprisingly, you left off the more important words just preceding your quote:

"The question in the present case is when did the rebellion begin and end?

In other words, what space of time must be considered as excepted from the operation of the statute of limitations by the war of the rebellion?

Acts of hostility [note the word "hostility", not "war"] by the insurgents [note the word "insurgents", not "Confederates"] occurred at periods so various, and of such different degrees of importance, and in parts of the country so remote from each other, both at the commencement and the close of the late civil war, that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to say on what precise day it began or terminated. "

What SCOTUS here calls insurgents' "acts of hostility" in normal conversation we call Confederate acts of war, and they began on Day One, in December 1860.

woodpusher: "You would have a state of war officially recognized between the United States and another belligerent power not recognized to exist."

No "state of war" was ever declared against a recognized Confederacy, only "commencement of hostilities" against "insurgents" in a "war of rebellion".

woodpusher: "The definition of war required an act of the U.S. Government to initiate that state of war, just as any other."

And yet you yourself posted normal definitions of war & battle which don't require any such thing.
I'm only saying: in normal conversation Democrat radicals are "at war" against the United States and our Constitution in 2016, just as they were beginning in 1860.

125 posted on 10/06/2020 6:47:03 AM PDT by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))

To: central_va; BroJoeK

Thank you for correction.
Here is the finding of the court.
https://civilwarhome.com/findingofcourt.htm

Here is an excerpt from the wiki page:
Wirz was accused of committing 13 acts of personal cruelty and murders in August 1864: by revolver (specifications 1, 3, 4), by physically stomping and kicking the victim (specification 2), by confining prisoners in stocks (specifications 5, 6), by beating a prisoner with a revolver (specification 13) and by chaining prisoners together (specification 7).[16] Wirz was also charged with ordering guards to fire on prisoners with muskets (specifications 8, 9, 10, 12) and to have dogs attack escaped prisoners (specification 11).[17] Wirz was found guilty of all charges except the murder in specification 4.

As to the subject of this thread you may notice the “treason language” etc. at the last paragraph of the finding. To me it is very clear they intended to hang the government as well.

Here is a page about the specifications you may find interesting:
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Wirz/Cont3.htm

Here is a Legal Affairs page I thought was pretty good:
https://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/September-October-2002/story_kleiner_sepoct2002.msp

As to the thread subject you may find interesting paragraph 17:
“The Union government had been loath to recognize the Confederacy as a separate nation during the war, but now that it was over the government made an exception, in order to prosecute Captain Wirz squarely. He was charged as a foreign enemy who had violated the international laws of war. The fact that he was born abroad may have made it easier...”

Freegards! And I hope you like it!

126 posted on 10/06/2020 1:08:10 PM PDT by BDParrish (God called, He said He'd take you back!)

You have, as is your typical wont, chosen to invoke the unidentified authority of Madlin Mekelburg (whoever she is) of The Statesman (whatever that is) and a Fact Check by Sarah Lynch of the Fake News USA Today to pretend to overrule official Opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Reference the U.S. Statute, U.S. Public Law 85-425, Ms. Lynch states, "While this act did grant Confederate veterans some benefits also allotted to U.S. war veterans, it does not confer on Confederate veterans equal status as U.S. veterans."

Of course, the actual law does not subscribe to your personal policy of mindless perpetual hate:

"CONFEDERATE FORCES VETERANS"
"Sec. 410. The Administrator shall pay to each person who served in the military or naval forces of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War a monthly pension in the same amounts to such person under the laws in effect on December, 31, 1957, if his service in such forces had been service in the military or naval service of the United States."

Public Law 810, February 26, 1929 authorized headstones for the graves of soldiers who served in the Confederate Army.

CHAP. 324.—An Act Authorizing the Secretary of War to erect headstones over the graves of soldiers who served in the Confederate Army and to direct him to preserve in the records of the War Department the names and places of burial of all soldiers for whom such headstones shall have been erected, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 'United States of America in Congress assembled That the Secretary War is authorized to erect headstones over the graves of soldiers who served in the Confederate Army and who have been buried in national, city, town, or village cemeteries or in any other places, each grave to be marked with a small headstone or block which shall be of durable stone and of such design and weight as shall keep it in place when set and shall bear the name of the soldier and the name of his State inscribed thereon when the same are known. The Secretary of War shall cause to be preserved in the records of the War Department the name, rank, company, regiment, and date of death of the soldier and his State; if these are unknown it shall be so recorded.
Approved, February 26, 1929.

Placement of Confederate Flags is authorized of the graves of Confederate veterans on Confederate Memorial Day.

https://www.nps.gov/policy/DOrders/DO_61.pdf

DIRECTOR’S ORDER #61: NATIONAL CEMETERY OPERATIONS

29 July 2010

In national cemeteries located in States which officially set aside a specific date as Confederate Memorial Day, the superintendent may permit a sponsoring group to decorate the graves of Confederate veterans with small Confederate flags. These flags will be removed from the graves as soon as possible following the designated Confederate Memorial Day. The acquisition and placement of these flags will be at no cost to the National Park Service. Confederate Flags will not be flown on any cemetery flagpole.

This must be especially painful to you as it does not comport with your personal policy of mindless perpetual hate.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

woodpusher quoting SCOTUS Protector 1870: "It is necessary, therefore, to refer to some public act of the political departments of the government to fix the dates, and, for obvious reasons..."

When you are done bullshitting, the Opinion of the Court has not changed. "We find that "the war began in Alabama on the 19th of April, 1861."

The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the court.
The question, in the present case is, when did the rebellion begin and end? In other words, what space of time must be considered as excepted from the operation of the statute of limitations by the war of the rebellion?
Acts of hostility by the insurgents occurred at periods so various, and of such different degrees of importance, and in parts of the country so remote from each other, both at the commencement and the close of the late civil war, that it
79 U.S. 700, 702
would be difficult, if not impossible, to say on what precise day it began or terminated. It is necessary, therefore, to refer to some public act of the political departments of the government to fix the dates; and, for obvious reasons, those of the executive department, which may be, and, in fact, was, at the commencement of hostilities, obliged to act during the recess of Congress, must be taken.
The proclamation of intended blockade by the President may therefore be assumed as marking the first of these dates, and the proclamation that the war had closed, as marking the second. But the war did not begin or close at the same time in all the States. There were two proclamations of intended blockade: the first of the 19th of April, 1861, embracing the States of South Corolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas; the second, of the 27th of April, 1861, embracing the States of Virginia and North Carolina; and there were two proclamations declaring that the war had closed; one issued on the 2d of April, 1866, embracing the States of Virginia, North Corolina, South Corolina, Georgia, Florida, Mississippi, Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana, and Arkansas, and the other issued on the 20th of August, 1866,1 embracing the State of Texas.
In the absence of more certain criteria, of equally general application, we must take the dates of these proclamations as ascertaining the commencement and the close of the war in the States mentioned in them. Applying this rule to the case before us, we find that the war began in Alabama on the 19th of April, 1861, and ended on the 2d April, 1866. More than five years, therefore, had elapsed from the close of the war till the 17th of May, 1871, when this appeal was brought. The motion to dismiss, therefore, must be
GRANTED.

Note the the Official Records are maintined in a publication entitled:

THE WAR OF THE REBELLION: A COMPILATION OF THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE UNION AND CONFEDERATE ARMIES.

Nor did the Opinion of the Court in Brown v. Hiattschange:

Opinion of the Court at 183-185:

It was held in the case of The Protector that the war began in that State at the date of the proclamation of intended blockade of her ports by the President. That was the first public act of the executive in which the existence of war in that State was officially recognized, and to its date the courts therefore look as the commencement of the war.
[...]
It is sufficient to state that the war was accompanied by the general incidents of a war between independent nations; that the inhabitants of the Confederate States on the one hand, and of the loyal States on the other, became thereby reciprocally enemies to each other, and were liable to be so treated without reference to their individual dispositions or opinions; that during its continuance all commercial intercourse and correspondence between them were interdicted by principles of public law as well as by express enactments of Congress; that all contracts previously made between them were suspended; and that the courts of each belligerent were closed to the citizens of the other.

Nor has the Opinion of the Court in the early 1814 case of The Rapid 8 U.S. 155 (1814) changed:

The Rapid, 8 Cranch (12 U.S.) 155, 160-161 (1814)

This is the first case, since its organization, in which this Court has been called upon to assert the rights of war against the property of a citizen. It is with extreme hesitation, and under a deep sense of the delicacy of the duty which we are called upon to discharge, that we proceed to adjudge the forfeiture of private right, upon principles of public law highly penal in their nature; and unfortunately too little understood.
But a new state of things has occurred—a new character has been assumed by this nation, which involves it in new relations, and confers on it new rights; which imposes a new class of obligations on our citizens, and subjects them to new penalties;
The nature and consequences of a state of war must direct us to the conclusions which we are to form on this case.
On this point there is really no difference of opinion among jurists: there can be none among those who will distinguish between what it is in itself, and what it ought to be under the influence of a benign morality and the modern practice of civilized nations. In the state of war, nation is known to nation only by their armed exterior; each threatening the other with conquest or annihilation. The individuals who compose the belligerent states, exist, as to each other, in a state of utter occlusion. If they meet, it is only in combat.
War strips man of his social nature; it demands of him the suppression of those sympathies which claim man for a brother; and accustoms the ear of humanity to hear with indifference, perhaps exultation, "that thousands have been slain."

Nor did the finding in Matthews v. McStea change.

No declaration of war was ever made. The President recognized its existence by proclaiming a blockade on the 19th of April; and it then became his duty as well as his right to direct how it should be carried on. In the exercise of this right, he was at liberty to allow or license intercourse; and his proclamations, if they did not license it expressly, did, in our opinion, license it by very cogent implications. It is impossible to read them without a conviction that no interdiction of commercial intercourse, except through the ports of the designated States, was intended. The first was that of April 15, 1861. The forts and property of the United States had, prior to that day, been forcibly seized by armed forces. Hostilities had commenced; and, in the light of subsequent events, it must be considered that a state of war then existed. Yet the proclamation, while calling for the militia of the several States, and stating what would probably be the first service assigned to them, expressly declared, that, “in every event, the utmost care would be observed, consistently with the repossession of the forts, places, and property which had been seized from the Union, to avoid any devastation, destruction of or interference with property, or any disturbance of peaceful citizens in any part of the country.” Manifestly, this declaration was not a mere military order. It did not contemplate the treatment of the inhabitants of the States in which the unlawful combinations mentioned in the proclamation existed as public enemies. It announced a different mode of treatment, — the treatment due to friends. It is to be observed that the proclamation of April 15, 1861, was not a distinct recognition of an existing state of war. The President had power to recognize it, The Prize Cases, supra ; but he did not prior to his second proclamation, that of April 19, in which he announced the blockade.

Obviously, the Supreme Court explicitly and emphatically found that the proclamation of April 15, 1861 was not a distinct recognition of a state of war. The court found that the President could have then recognized such a state of war but chose not to, and did not do so, until April 19, 1861.

Until you find a higher authority than the U.S. Supreme Court, you can take your fake news fact checks and internet blogs and stick them in the round file.

At question is whether there was a war. There was. When did it start: April 19, 1861. Were the captured soldiers prisoners of war? Yes they were. And The Federal governnent has authorized to Confederate veterans: graves, headmarkers, pensions, and placement of Confederate flags on Confederte Memorial Day.

127 posted on 10/09/2020 11:28:49 AM PDT by woodpusher

"But neither Lincoln, nor Congress, nor the Supreme Court ever recognized the pretend Confederacy as a legitimate country." .... the main point: the United States never recognized the Confederacy as a legitimate government. .... do not add up to US recognition of the Confederacy as a legitimate government.

The Confederacy was recognized as a lawful belligerent power and its government was recognized as the de facto territory of that area.

Lincoln did not issue his proclamation in ignorance of the law, or its effects. Lincoln was a lawyer, and the issue was debated in the cabinet. On April 11, 1865, when the war was almost over, the U.S. Government announced a closing of the ports. At the time of this proclamation, Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles said: "This was a step which I had earnestly pressed at the beginning of the rebellion, as a domestic measure, andmore legitimate than a blockade, which was international, and an admission that we were two nations." Lincoln made a considered judgment that the benefits of a blockade outweighed the cost of it being an international act.

Nobody has been discussing official recognition with diplomatic relations.

By your repeated stupid, jackass, asinine comment, you would have Communist China have been non-existent until January 1, 1979. You repeatedly and deliberately mistake the nonexistence of formal diplomatic relations with the nonexistence of a state.

https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1977-80v01/d104

JOINT COMMUNIQUE ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
JANUARY 1, 1979
The United States of America and the People’s Republic of China have agreed to recognize each other and to establish diplomatic relations as of January 1, 1979.
The United States of America recognizes the Government of the People’s Republic of China as the sole legal Government of China. Within this context, the people of the United States will maintain cultural, commercial, and other unofficial relations with the people of Taiwan.
[...]

If one believes your unrelenting line of bullshit, The Peoples Republic of China did not exist prior to January 1, 1979.

They were not previously involved in a military conflict in the Korean Peninsula because they did not exist. That was just extraordinarily large combinations of persons wearing uniforms and carrrying guns and making one hell of a civil disturbance. The should have been ordered to disperse and retire peacefully to their abodes. There was no international armed conflict because the United States President had not formally recognized them and established diplomatic relations. /s

You are wasting time with your moronic, pedantic nonsense.

128 posted on 10/09/2020 11:30:18 AM PDT by woodpusher

woodpusher quoting SCOTUS Protector 1870: "It is necessary, therefore, to refer to some public act of the political departments of the government to fix the dates, and, for obvious reasons..."

surprisingly, you left off the more important words just preceding your quote:
The question in the present case is when did the rebellion begin and end? [note the word "rebellion"]
other words, what space of time must be considered as excepted from the operation of the statute of limitations by the war of the rebellion?
the first, the "war of rebellion" and, second, it's about a statute of limitations, not diplomatic recognition of the Confederate government.]

Nobody has been discussing official recognition with diplomatic relations.

By your repeated stupid, jackass, asinine comments, you would have Communist China have been non-existent until January 1, 1979.

https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1977-80v01/d104

JOINT COMMUNIQUE ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
JANUARY 1, 1979
The United States of America and the People’s Republic of China have agreed to recognize each other and to establish diplomatic relations as of January 1, 1979.
The United States of America recognizes the Government of the People’s Republic of China as the sole legal Government of China. Within this context, the people of the United States will maintain cultural, commercial, and other unofficial relations with the people of Taiwan.
[...]

If one believe your unrelented line of bullshit, The Peoples Republic of China did not exist prior to January 1, 1979 when it received formal recognition and diplomatic relations.

They were not previously involved in a military conflict in the Korean Peninsula because they did not exist. That was just extraordinarily large combinations of persons wearing uniforms and carrrying guns and making one hell of a civil disturbance. There was no international armed conflict because the United States President had not formally recognized them and established diplomatic relations. /s

You are wasting time with your moronic, pedantic nonsense.

129 posted on 10/09/2020 11:33:39 AM PDT by woodpusher

To: BDParrish; central_va

Here is a page about the specifications you may find interesting:
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Wirz/Cont3.htm

That was Container 3. Containers 1 & 2 may be found interesting. The trial featured the same government sponsored perjury as at the trials of the Lincoln assassination conspirators, and the seperate trial of John Harrison Surratt. The perjurers testified under false identities and, when exposed, disappeared. For examples, there was Henry von Steinaker at the Lincoln conspiracy trial, later revealed to be Hans. H. Vonwinkelstein, a U.S. Army deserter, known as such to the prosecutors. The transcript of his U.S. Army court-martial was much later found attached to the archived records of the conspiracy trial. And we cannot forget Sanford Conover, a/k/a James Watson Wallace, and others, he turned out to be Charles A. Dunham, about whose various intrigues a whole book was written. There was even the School for Perjury where the prosecutors trained the witnesses to commit perjury. He perjured himself in the assassination conspiracy trial and was caught and revealed all related to the trial of John Harrison Surratt.

I would also note that the trial was a military commission or tribunal, not a court or court-martial.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Wirz/Cont1.htm

Felix de la Baume
By far the most damaging testimony against Wirz was that of Felix de la Baume. De la Baume was the only witness who identified a victim by name who was alleged to have been directly killed by Wirz.
De la Baume, who claimed to be a Frenchman and descendant of Lafayette, was discovered after the trial, to actually be Felix Oeser. Oeser was born in Saxony, Prussia and lied in order to help conceal that he was a former member of the 7th New York Volunteers who had deserted during the war. He was a skilled orator and so impressed the commission that he was given a written commendation signed by all of the members regarding his testimony. He was also appointed to a position in the Department of the Interior before Wirz's trial ended. Once his true identify and status was discovered, only eleven days after Wirz had been hung, he admitted being Oeser and to having perjured himself in the testimony at Wirz's trial. Oeser subequently vanished into obscurity.

- - - - - - - - - -

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Wirz/Cont2.htm

Why only Wirz?
The initial charges and specifications brought against Wirz listed multiple other Confederate military officers and political figures including the Secretary of War and the Confederate President, Jefferson Davis, himself. The prosecution was mysteriously told to drop the political figures from the list of charges and specifications. Several explanations can be presented for such action.
The South had only recently fallen and Jefferson Davis as well as the other political figures still commanded great admiration and respect among Southerners. Indictment of Davis would, no doubt, have created great impediments, further delaying peaceful readmission of Southern states following the war. This is particularly true since evidence of conspiracy involvement by Davis relating to Andersonville was non-existent.
Additionally, several officials and Confederate officers had been pardoned. Some, including General Winder, were dead. Others had fled the country to avoid potential imprisonment or worse.
The simple answer is that Wirz could be found and arrested. Wirz had been the commandant of Andersonville which was the prison camp having the most deaths of Union soldiers over the shortest period of time. He was known to the men who were prisoners in Andersonville. The men blamed him for the conditions and deaths occurring in the prison and they strongly despised him. The North needed someone to blame and to take vengeance upon. Wirz was the best candidate for this scapegoating.

To be considered is that the Commission or Tribunal was held in Washington, D.C. Per the 4th Amendment,

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger;

Wirz was not in the land or naval forces of the United States, nor in the militia.

The 6th Amendment provided,

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Any alleged crime was committed in Georgia, not the district of Columbia.

In Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2 (1866). SCOTUS ruled that trying civilians in military tribunals when civilian courts are still operating is unconstitutional. The courts in the district of Columbia were open and operating, and the military tribunal of any civilian in such a military tribunal was unconstitutional.

The Wirz proceedings are covered at O.R. Series 2, Vol 8, pp. 784-794.

784 | 785 | 786 | 787 | 788 | 789 | 790 | 791 | 792 | 793 | 794 |

On page 794, the execution is documented as having been carried out.

https://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/Wirz-trial.pdf

889 pp. PDF. The official record of the Trial of Henry Wirz. House of Representatives, Fortieth Congress, Second Session, Executive Document 23; December 7, 1867.—Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary and ordered to be printed.

At p. 810:

The testimony supporting the first specification is that of Felix de la Baume, a Union soldier, who states, that on or about the 8th of July, 1864, he was one of a detachment of prisoners taken to Wirz's headquarters to be enrolled, before being sent into the prison; that one of his comrades was attacked with epilepsy, and some of his companions, by permission of the guard, ran to the creek for water; that he, the witness, heard a shot fired, and, on turning, saw Wirz fire two more, wouuding two, prisoners, one of whom the witness never saw nor heard of afterwards; and the other of whom he saw carried up to Wirz's headquarters, in a dying condition, the wound being in the breast. There is also the testimony of George Conway, who states, that on or about the 11th of July, 1864, he saw Wirz shoot a Union prisoner within the stockade as he was stooping to pick up his cup, which had fallen under the dead-line, and that the man died almost instantly. Which of these two cases (either being, it is conceived, sufficient to sustain the allegation) the court relied on, does not, of course, appear.

The repeated use of Union deserters, using false names, who had been court-martialed and paroled and paid to commit their perjury caught up with the prosecution in the trial of John Harrison Surratt where it was exposed by "William Campbell," real name Joseph A. Hoare, bigly.

The perjury trial of Dunham/Conover/Wallace (as many as 20 aliases) ran from February 5 to February 11, 1867 in the criminal court for the District of Washington before Judge George Fisher, who also presided over the trial of John H. Surratt.

David M. DeWitt, The Impeachment and Trial of Andrew Johnson, New York, Russell & Russell, 1903, reissued 1967 by Russell & Russell, pp. 138-9:

Joseph Holt—the Judge-Advocate-General of the army—the employer and patron of Sanford Conover, that head-centre of professional witnesses—was his main reliance in this work. He furnished the committee, first, with the copy of his spy's testimony given before the military commission, and, second, the depositions of seven persons brought by Conover to Holt's office in the fall of 1865 and sworn to statements involving the complicity of Davis, Thompson, Clay and others in the assassination; among the rest two men calling themselves Campbell and Snevel who testified that they were present, with John H. Surratt, at an interview with Davis and Benjamin, in the early spring of 1865, at Richmond, when the plot to assassinate Lincoln was discussed and approved. The committee despatched an officer to New York to find Conover and his affiants, who succeeded in seeing Conover, Campbell and Snevel and in bringing Campbell back with him. He reported to the committee that Campbell confessed to him that his deposition was fabricated by Conover, and the committee thereupon telegraphed for Conover to come to Washington. Conover suspecting nothing came; and on the eighth day of May, 1866, the master and his tool were confronted with each other in the rooms of the committee. Campbell was sworn and testified that his deposition was false in every particular; that his real name was Joseph A. Hoare; that the deposition was written out for him by Conover and he committed it to memory; and that the other deponents had given false names and were likewise the creatures of Conover. In his turn, Conover swore that Campbell's present testimony was false and that he himself had no reason to doubt the truth of the depositions. He was allowed to go to New York with the sergeant-at-arms to find the other witnesses, but on his arrival in that city he escaped from the custody of the officer and vanished. Snevel was found and, appearing before the committee (May 24), testified that his real name was Roberts and that, like Campbell's, his deposition also was fabricated by Conover. These self-confessed scoundrels were both paid by the Bureau of Military Justice—Campbell receiving $625, and Snevel $475.

In Carmen Cumming, Devil's Game, The Civil War Intrigues of Charles A. Dunham, at page 209:

Newspapers gave little attention to Dunham’s conviction or the continuing efforts to get him freed—not surprising, perhaps, given the major political crises going on in Washington and the ambiguities of the case. By this point partisans in both the press and Congress were not sure which side Dunham was on, so they hardly knew what spin to put on the story. In late April the National Intelligencer was mildly puzzled about why he had still not been sentenced more than two months after his conviction, and after the apparent removal of every legal impediment. It said various theories were circulating—that a pardon might be forthcoming, that Dunham might be used as a witness in the Surratt case, or that the judges were uncertain which perjury statute should determine his sentence. When the ten-year sentence was finally handed down April 25, the highlight was a curious comment by Judge Fisher showing he knew Dunham was being tried for the wrong crime: “Had you been tried before me for the perjuries you committed at the assassination trial,” the judge intoned, “I would have sentenced you to death.” The judge, who would himself later encounter corruption charges, said nothing about what would have been a just penalty for those in power who knew of Dunham’s commission perjury but took no action.

Research by Cumming on Dunham/Conover shows that Dunham received regular payments from Chief Prosecutor Holt from assorted funds. While the totality remains unknown, payments from the Secret Service to Conover (Dunham) were documented for 5/22/1865, 8/12/1865, 8/19/1865, 9/19/1865, 10/21/1865, 11/4/1865, 11/7/1865, 11/20/1865, 11/24/1865, 1/22/1866, 2/9/1866, 2/10/1866, and 2/27/1866, totaling $4,275. In today's value that would amount to $77,486.01 in known payments.

Several of these military commissions were held. Capt. Wirz was convicted by majority vote. The Lincoln assassination conspirators were convicted. Brig. Gen Mercer and Maj. Gee were acquitted. The military commissions were not judicial proceedings but are creatures of the Executive Branch, as are courts-martial. These were followed by the disaster at the trial of John Harrison Surratt, a real judicial proceeding in the Criminal Court for the District of Columbia, Judge George P. Fisher, presiding. The School for Perjury at the National Hotel and payments by Prosecutor Holt to Charles A. Dunham became historical record.

Prosecutor Holt's treatment of Conover/Dunham was special, as Holt wrote in his own defense. Having found Conover to be a perjurer and suborner of perjury in a death penalty case, Holt sent Conover to find the lying witnesses he had produced and return with them. And Dunham left and did not return until he was tracked down and arrested, October 31, 1866.

Official Records, Ser 2, Vol 8, Report of Holt to Stanton of July 3, 1866; pp. 931-945, at pg. 943:

Conover accordingly came and went before the committee, and while undergoing examination there, Campbell was introduced, and having been sworn, he stated that his deposition given before the Bureau of Military Justice was false in all respects, and was wholly and completely the fabrication of Conover; who then being present, replied under oath that this declaration of Campbell was untrue, but declined to offer any explanation. After, however, Campbell had been withdrawn, Conover suggested to the committee as a reason why he (Campbell) had made his statement that he had probably been corrupted, and supposed he could make more by falsifying his former testimony than he could by sustaining it.
“I said to Conover immediately after his examination closed, that I was utterly astounded at the evidence Campbell had given. His reply was, ‘You cannot be more so than I am. I then added: ‘You see the position in which you are placed; now, if what is charged against you is false, your only mode of vindication is to bring before the committee the witnesses whom you produced, and whose depositions were taken before the Bureau of Military Justice, in order that they may be examined and reaffirm their testimony.’ He said he would proceed to New York with the officer of the committee, and assist him in finding the witnesses; and would, as I understood him to say, return with them to Washington. He left, as I was told, with the officer of the committee; but on arriving at New York separated himself from him, and was not seen by him afterward; and up to this time he has not communicated with me, nor has he made any effort, as I believe, to produce the witnesses, nor has he offered any vindication of his conduct.
“This action of his, added to the declarations under oath of Campbell, followed up, as they were afterwards, by the testimony of Snevel as to the utter falsity of the depositions which he and Campbell had given, left on my mind a strong impression that Conover had been guilty of a most atrocious crime, committed under what promptings I am wholly unable to determine.

In one of the damnedest reports, Judge Advocate L.C. Turner had filed the following with the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives.

Official Records, Ser. 2, Vol. 8, pp. 921-23:

WAR DEPARTMENT, JUDGE-ADVOCATE’S OFFICE,
Washington, D. C., June 2, 1866.
Report of Col. L. C. Turner, Judge-Advocate, to the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives, in the matter of witnesses who had sworn falsely in relation to the complicity of Jeff. Davis and others in the assassination of President Lincoln.
On Thursday night, April 26 last, by direction of Judge-Advocate General Holt, I went to New York City to find and procure the attendance of eight persons as witnesses before the House Judiciary Committee. The names of said witnesses, as furnished me by General Holt, were Sanford Conover, William Campbell, Joseph Snevel, Farnum B. Wright, John H. Patten, Sarah Douglass, [John] McGill, and Miss [Mary] Knapp. The only information I had as to where said persons could be found was that General Holt informed me that Conover’s address was at Station A, post-office, New York (but Governor Boutwell told me it was Station F); that Snevel’s address was Station D, New York; that Campbell, Wright, and McGill were supposed to be in or about New York; Patten in Saint Louis; Mrs. Douglass and Miss Knapp in Canada. I was advised that Wright should be sent to find Patten and that Conover should find and procure the two women, and General Holt was to telegraph Snevel to [meet] me at the Astor House Friday a. m., and he gave me a letter to Conover asking him to aid me in procuring said witnesses, &c. On reaching the Astor House on Friday morning I wrote two notes to Conover, one directed to Station A, the other to Station F, asking him to call on me at once. Friday p. m. a card was left for me by Snevel, saying he would call next day and requesting that I would leave a note at the office stating my business, &c. Saturday Snevel called, said that he had not seen Conover in two or three days, that he was in Brooklyn, and when he last saw him he said he was about going to Washington and wished him (Snevel) to remain in New York and he would give him a good job on his return from Washington. Snevel also told me he had not seen Campbell for some days, but promised to find Conover and Campbell and come with them to my room that evening (Saturday) or Sunday morning. As Snevel left I at once went to Marshal Murray’s office to ascertain if I could get aid in finding the men, if needed, as I suspected that all was not right. The distance to the marshal’s office from the Astor House is a walk of from three to five minutes. I did not find Marshal Murray, and returued to the Astor House, and when returning I met Snevel in the street. I spoke to him and he introduced me to Campbell, who was with him. They did not appear at their ease and seemed surprised at meeting me. They promised to find Conover and come with him to my room that evening or early Sunday morning. I then wrote two more notes to Conover at Stations A and F, saying I had a letter from Judge Holt to him asking his aid and assistance. No one appeared till Sunday afternoon and then Campbell called alone. I talked with him and asked questions and he was a good deal embarrassed. He finally asserted, “This is all false; I must make a clean breast of it; I can’t stand it any louger.” He then made a full disclosure, giving a history of himself, of Snevel and Conover, and others as far as he knew; the deceptions, fraud, and injury and perjury that had been practiced and perpetrated. Campbell informed me, and I afterward found it to be true, that Conover and himself saw the telegram sent Snevel by Judge Holt; that Conover received my notes, and that Conover dictated, wrote out, the note left by Snevel for me Friday; that Conover sent Snevel to my room, told him what to say, &c. I directed Campbell to say to Conover that I wished to have him go to Canada for witnesses, and that I had a letter for him from Judge Holt, &c., and that I wanted to send him at once. Conover finally called Monday noon. He was agitated, uneasy; said he was “busy and could not stop then.” He left and promised to call next morning at 10 o’clock. He did not call till 3 p. m. I gave him the letter of Judge Holt. He said he would go to Canada for Mrs. Douglass and Miss Knapp; that they were at Lachiue and that Wright was in Montreal; that he would find Wright and send him to Saint Louis for Patten, &c. He figured out the expenses of getting them to Washington at about $400. I told him I would telegraph to the Judiciary Committee for the money, and he was to call on me at 9 o’clock that evening. Previous to this I had ascertained unmistakably that the names of the eight witnesses were all fictitious, and that their names and residences were as follows:
Sanford Conover—his true name is Dunham; lawyer by profession; formerly lived at Croton, then in New York and Brooklyn; a very shrewd, bad, and dangerous man. William Campbell—his true name is Joseph A. Hoare; a gas-fixer by trade; born in the State of New York and never south of Washington. Joseph Snevel—his true name is William H. Roberts, formerly ticket agent on Harlem Railroad, then kept tavern at Yonkers, &c.; was never South. Farnum B. Wright— true name John Waters; is lame in the knee, works in a brickyard near Cold Spring, on Long Island, &c. John H. Patten—true name, Peter Stevens; lives at Nyack, near Piermont, on the North River; is now a justice of the peace there. Sarah Douglass and Miss Knapp—the true name of one is Dunham, who is the wife of Conover; the name of the other is Mrs. Charles Smythe, is the sister or sister-in-law of Conover and lives at Cold Spring, Long Island; her husband is a clerk on Blackwell’s Island. McGill—his name is Neally; he is a licensed peddler in New York and sometimes drives a one-horse cart.
Conover agreed to call at or before 9 o’clock Tuesday evening. He sent a card saying he had called and would call again Wednesday morning at 10 o’clock. Campbell, as agreed, left with me Thursday morning for Washington and I directed that if any one called for me to say that I had gone to Boston for a few days. I returned to Washington with Campbell, and Conover was telegraphed by the Judiciary Committee to come on here. He sent Snevel to the Astor House and was told I had gone to Boston and he then left for Washington, expecting, I suppose, to be sent to Canada and get money. He called at committee room of the Judiciary Committee and there met Campbell unexpectedly. After this, as is known, the assistant sergeant-at-arms went with Conover to New York to subpoena certain witnesses. On reaching the Astor House Conover left the sergeant-at-arms and he has not seen him since. Then, May 15, instant, by direction of Judge Holt, I went to New York with Campbell and sergeant-at arms to find and subpoena Snevel, McGill, Wright, and Patten. We found Snevel in the keeping of Conover, who was living in a tenement house up town. We found Wright (Waters) at Cold Spring; Patten (Esquire Stevens) at Nyack, and McGill (Neally) in New York, and they were all subpoenaed. Through the influence and efforts of Campbell (Hoare), mainly, Snevel was induced to call on me and made a full disclosure and agreed to go to Washington and before the Judiciary Committee. He did so, with Campbell, and made his verified statement. I state, in addition, that while Campbell was making his disclosure I asked him if it were true, as he asserted, that the depositions of himself, Snevel, and others, made before General Holt, were entirely false, how it happened that they gave such consistent, minute, and plausible statements? He replied: “The statements made by Snevel and myself were written out by Conover and we studied and rehearsed them at the National Hotel, in Washington, several days before making our depositions.” He said he had original, as prepared for himself by Conover, in his possession and would give it to me. He did so and I herewith inclose it, marked as Exhibit A.* It is in Conover’s handwriting. Campbell also informed me that Conover “planned that he (Campbell) should go to the Canadian border, at Rouse’s Point or Saint Albans, on pretense that he could find an important witness named Lamar;” and Campbell was sent by General Holt by reason of their false representations. Campbell said he knew no such man as Lamar and that his mission to Saint Albans, Boston, and back to Washington was a fraudulent pretense devised by Conover to obtain money, &c. Campbell left Washington on this deceptive mission, leaving Conover in Washington; and when he reached New York he received a letter of instructions from Conover, which is herewith iuclosed, marked Exhibit B.* My investigation and the disclosures made prove (undoubtingly in my mind) that the depositions made by Campbell, Snevel, Wright, Patten, Mrs. Douglass, and others are false; that they are cunningly devised, diabolical fabrications of Conover, verified by his suborned and perjured accomplices.
L. C. TURNER,
Judge-Advocate.

130 posted on 10/12/2020 12:58:31 PM PDT by woodpusher

Thanks but I can’t read it right now.
Freegards!
Brian D

131 posted on 10/14/2020 1:31:26 PM PDT by BDParrish (God called, He said He'd take you back!)

To: woodpusher; rockrr; Bull Snipe; OIFVeteran; jmacusa

Sorry for the delay responding, I've been thankfully quite busy elsewhere...

woodpusher: "You have, as is your typical wont, chosen to invoke the unidentified authority of Madlin Mekelburg (whoever she is) of The Statesman (whatever that is) and a Fact Check by Sarah Lynch of the Fake News USA Today to pretend to overrule official Opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court."

Nonsense, SCOTUS never recognized the Confederacy as a legitimate country.
So in those quotes I merely juxtapose two other "bloggers" opinions against yours.

woodpusher: "Of course, the actual law does not subscribe to your personal policy of mindless perpetual hate:"

More nonsense -- there's no hate here, only love for fellow Americans.
Hatred is what you Democrats do, day, night, always one hatred after another.
On CW threads you're here hating the United States, hating Republicans, hating our Constitution -- it's all just blind hatred you were taught as children and now can't, won't, let go of.

But you have to let go of it if you ever wish to be a Republican.
We're the party of love -- for our fellow Americans, for our Constitution and for our history, our real history, not that pack of Democrat lies known informally as the Lost Cause.

woodpusher: "Placement of Confederate Flags is authorized of the graves of Confederate veterans on Confederate Memorial Day."

Sure, but no ambassadors were ever exchanged and no trade deals ever signed, because the Confederacy was never recognized as a legitimate country.

woodpusher: "This must be especially painful to you as it does not comport with your personal policy of mindless perpetual hate."

No hate here, FRiend, only love for truth.
You Democrats are the haters, always have been, likely always will be.
Hate & lies are your vocation, your advocation & profession.
It's how you define the word "Democrat".

woodpusher: "When you are done bullshitting, the Opinion of the Court has not changed. "We find that "the war began in Alabama on the 19th of April, 1861.""

If you'd ever stop bullsh*tting, you'd realize that's only for purposes of commercial contracts, as SCOTUS itself acknowledged.

"Acts of hostility by the insurgents occurred at periods so various, and of such different degrees of importance, and in parts of the country so remote from each other, both at the commencement and the close of the late civil war, that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to say on what precise day it began or terminated."

woodpusher quoting SCOTUS Brown:

"It was held in the case of The Protector that the war began in that State at the date of the proclamation of intended blockade of her ports by the President.
That was the first public act of the executive in which the existence of war in that State was officially recognized, and to its date the courts therefore look as the commencement of the war.."

woodpusher quoting SCOTUS Matthew:

"No declaration of war was ever made.
The President recognized its existence by proclaiming a blockade on the 19th of April; "

Notice the language here -- it does not say, "Lincoln started the War of Northern Aggression on April 19," rather SCOTUS said: Lincoln recognized war already existed on April 19.
The Democrats' war against the United States had actually begun in December 1860, but we Republicans are slow learners, it took us months to figure out what you Democrats were up to.

woodpusher quoting SCOTUS Matthew:

"It is to be observed that the proclamation of April 15, 1861, was not a distinct recognition of an existing state of war.
The President had power to recognize it, The Prize Cases, supra ; but he did not prior to his second proclamation, that of April 19,"

In fact, Lincoln used the word "war" in neither his April 15 nor April 19 proclamations.
Nor did he in his July 4 message to Congress, except to mention the "war power in defense of the government".
On April 19 Lincoln first mentioned "insurrection" and on July 4 replaced "insurrection" with "rebellion".
So SCOTUS interpreted Lincoln's word "insurrection" to mean "war", but that was not, in fact, what Lincoln said.

woodpusher: "At question is whether there was a war. "

Lincoln did not use the word "war" in his early proclamations, only "insurrection" and "rebellion".
By the time of his second inaugural, it was a different matter:

"Both parties deprecated war; but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive; and the other would accept war rather than let it perish.
And the war came."

In fact, Democrats were waging war against the United States in December 1860, just as they are today.

So the bottom line is, just as we all recognize that Covid-19 is a deadly disease which we hope to fight & defeat, and we likewise recognize Islamic terrorists can be dangerous.
But we did not exchange ambassadors or sign trade agreements with either, nor with the 1860s Democrat Confederacy.

132 posted on 10/16/2020 7:03:39 AM PDT by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))

To: nathanbedford

Thank you to your Great Grand Father for defending states rights
-from a former Virginian

133 posted on 10/16/2020 7:09:21 AM PDT by griffin

woodpusher: "The Confederacy was recognized as a lawful belligerent power and its government was recognized as the de facto territory of that area."

"Lawful" only in the sense that rebellion, insurrection and treason are ever "lawful".
The CSA was never recognized as a legitimate country.

woodpusher: "Lincoln made a considered judgment that the benefits of a blockade outweighed the cost of it being an international act.
Nobody has been discussing official recognition with diplomatic relations."

Because that's all that really matters here, the rest is just your noise & nonsense.

woodpusher: "By your repeated stupid, jackass, asinine comment, you would have Communist China have been non-existent until January 1, 1979.
You repeatedly and deliberately mistake the nonexistence of formal diplomatic relations with the nonexistence of a state."

So now, typical Democrat, you're here defending the Chi-Coms??
The real fact is, the Chi-Coms were not a legitimate government before January 1, 1979 and are still not today.
But you Democrats love, love Communists, and so President Carter granted them a diplomatic recognition they did not deserve, while at the same time giving away the Panama Canal.
It was all in the name of "world peace" donchaknow?

woodpusher: "If one believes your unrelenting line of bullshit, The Peoples Republic of China did not exist prior to January 1, 1979."

Nonsense, but if one believes your unrelenting line of bullsh*t, The Peoples Republic of China suddenly became legitimate on January 1, 1979.
They didn't, despite Peanut Carter's best efforts.

woodpusher: "You are wasting time with your moronic, pedantic nonsense."

You, sir, are wasting time with your moronic, pedantic nonsense.

134 posted on 10/16/2020 7:24:35 AM PDT by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))

woodpusher: "Nobody has been discussing official recognition with diplomatic relations."

That's all I'm discussing, because that's all that matters.
The rest is just your bloviating nonsense, sir.

135 posted on 10/16/2020 7:26:24 AM PDT by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))

States rights? You mean the right to own slaves.

136 posted on 10/16/2020 10:43:08 AM PDT by jmacusa (If we're all equal how is diversity our strength?)

The issue is not dead but universal. England narrowly won its battle for states rights when it voted Brexit. The United States today is fighting a battle led by Trump to preserve our nation-state's integrity from a real threat from China.

It is interesting that you ping me on this vanity a month after its publication. One never knows how far the ripples might extend when a stone is cast into the pond.

Thanks for your reply.

137 posted on 10/16/2020 12:25:59 PM PDT by nathanbedford (attack, repeat, attack! Bull Halsey)

138 posted on 10/19/2020 2:50:26 PM PDT by griffin

Ummmm. Yup. That’s why they went to war. They made it plain in their constitution. Don’t waste your breath trying to argue otherwise. Please. I’ve been around this a million times with you Rebs and it all comes out the same.

139 posted on 10/19/2020 10:20:18 PM PDT by jmacusa (If we're all equal how is diversity our strength?)

Nonsense, SCOTUS never recognized the Confederacy as a legitimate country.
So in those quotes I merely juxtapose two other "bloggers" opinions against yours.

Your quotes are anonymous, unsourced, or fake news. They are not sources which override a half dozen Supreme Court opinions. You would quote authoritative sources, but you have none to quote. "My" opinions were quotes of Supreme Court opinions. The sources you dredge up have as much authority as the loons who claim Kamala Harris is ineligible for VP because she does not have two U.S. citizen parents.

Respectfully, your are sir, you do not know what you are talking about. You have no clue and just make stuff up, and it spews forth, sort of like your guru Joe Biden.

While the Taliban was the government of Afghanistan, the Geneva Convention applied to the conflict with the Taliban, even though the United States did not recognize the Taliban as the official government.

While the Taliban was the government, Taliban fighters were state actors, unlike al-Qaeda fighters who were always non-state actors.

In international law, the United States does not get to unilaterally decide what nations do, and do no exist, by granting or withholding official recognition. Your legal pontifications, pulled from your butt, are a joke.

See Ari Fleischer, Special White House Announcement Re: Application of Geneva Conventions in Afghanistan (Feb 7, 2002),

(1) the 1949 Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war, to which both Afghanistan ad the United States are parties, applies to the ared conflict in Afghanistan betwee the Taliban and the United States.

See also the United States Policy statement on detainees:

The President has determined that the Geneva Convention applies to the Taliban detainees, but not to the al-Qaida detainees. Al-Qaida is not a state party to the Geneva Convention; it is a foreign terrorist group. As such, its members are not entitled to POW status.
Although we never recognized the Taliban as the legitimate Afghan government, Afghanistan is a party to the Convention, and the President has determined that the Taliban are covered by the Convention.

"The President" in 2002 = Republican George W. Bush. The law did not change in 2002, just the President and h=the party in power.

woodpusher: "When you are done bullshitting, the Opinion of the Court has not changed. "We find that "the war began in Alabama on the 19th of April, 1861.""

If you'd ever stop bullsh*tting, you'd realize that's only for purposes of commercial contracts, as SCOTUS itself acknowledged.

If the Supreme Court had said that, you would have quoted them doing so. They did not and you did could not.

The Supreme Court was very, very clear on multiple occasions.

In Brown v. Hiatts, 82 U.S. 177, 183 (1872)

It was held in the case of The Protector that the war began in that State at the date of the proclamation of intended blockade of her ports by the President.

It can't get any clearer than that. That holding applies to all cases for all legal purposes. It is most certainly not restricted in its application to commercial contracts. You made that crap up, but you can cite no legal source for it.

In fact, Democrats were waging war against the United States in December 1860, just as they are today.

You are crazed with hate and an overly vivid imagination. Seek help.

140 posted on 10/21/2020 11:19:46 AM PDT by woodpusher

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794