Spec #1: Gross Public Dumb
Posted on 06/12/2003 5:58:28 AM PDT by Aurelius
Over the years I've heard many rail at the South for seceding from the 'glorious Union.' They claim that Jeff Davis and all Southerners were really nothing but traitors - and some of these people were born and raised in the South and should know better, but don't, thanks to their government school 'education.'
Frank Conner, in his excellent book The South Under Siege 1830-2000 deals in some detail with the question of Davis' alleged 'treason.' In referring to the Northern leaders he noted: "They believed the most logical means of justifying the North's war would be to have the federal government convict Davis of treason against the United States. Such a conviction must presuppose that the Confederate States could not have seceded from the Union; so convicting Davis would validate the war and make it morally legitimate."
Although this was the way the federal government planned to proceed, that prolific South-hater, Thaddeus Stevens, couldn't keep his mouth shut and he let the cat out of the bag. Stevens said: "The Southerners should be treated as a conquered alien enemy...This can be done without violence to the established principles only on the theory that the Southern states were severed from the Union and were an independent government de facto and an alien enemy to be dealt with according to the laws of war...No reform can be effected in the Southern States if they have never left the Union..." And, although he did not plainly say it, what Stevens really desired was that the Christian culture of the Old South be 'reformed' into something more compatible with his beliefs. No matter how you look at it, the feds tried to have it both ways - they claimed the South was in rebellion and had never been out of the Union, but then it had to do certain things to 'get back' into the Union it had never been out of. Strange, is it not, that the 'history' books never seem to pick up on this?
At any rate, the Northern government prepared to try President Davis for treason while it had him in prison. Mr. Conner has observed that: "The War Department presented its evidence for a treason trial against Davis to a famed jurist, Francis Lieber, for his analysis. Lieber pronounced 'Davis will not be found guilty and we shall stand there completely beaten'." According to Mr. Conner, U.S. Attorney General James Speed appointed a renowned attorney, John J. Clifford, as his chief prosecutor. Clifford, after studying the government's evidence against Davis, withdrew from the case. He said he had 'grave doubts' about it. Not to be undone, Speed then appointed Richard Henry Dana, a prominent maritime lawyer, to the case. Mr. Dana also withdrew. He said basically, that as long as the North had won a military victory over the South, they should just be satisfied with that. In other words - "you won the war, boys, so don't push your luck beyond that."
Mr. Conner tells us that: "In 1866 President Johnson appointed a new U.S. attorney general, Henry Stanburg. But Stanburg wouldn't touch the case either. Thus had spoken the North's best and brightest jurists re the legitimacy of the War of Northern Aggression - even though the Jefferson Davis case offered blinding fame to the prosecutor who could prove that the South had seceded unconstitutionally." None of these bright lights from the North would touch this case with a ten-foot pole. It's not that they were dumb, in fact the reverse is true. These men knew a dead horse when they saw it and were not about to climb aboard and attempt to ride it across the treacherous stream of illegal secession. They knew better. In fact, a Northerner from New York, Charles O'Connor, became the legal counsel for Jeff Davis - without charge. That, plus the celebrity jurists from the North that refused to touch the case, told the federal government that they really had no case against Davis or secession and that Davis was merely being held as a political prisoner.
Author Richard Street, writing in The Civil War back in the 1950s said exactly the same thing. Referring to Jeff Davis, Street wrote: "He was imprisoned after the war, was never brought to trial. The North didn't dare give him a trial, knowing that a trial would establish that secession was not unconstitutional, that there had been no 'rebellion' and that the South had got a raw deal." At one point the government intimated that it would be willing to offer Davis a pardon, should he ask for one. Davis refused that and he demanded that the government either give him a pardon or give him a trial, or admit that they had dealt unjustly with him. Mr. Street said: "He died 'unpardoned' by a government that was leery of giving him a public hearing." If Davis was as guilty as they claimed, why no trial???
Had the federal government had any possible chance to convict Davis and therefore declare secession unconstitutional they would have done so in a New York minute. The fact that they diddled around and finally released him without benefit of the trial he wanted proves that the North had no real case against secession. Over 600,000 boys, both North and South, were killed or maimed so the North could fight a war of conquest over something that the South did that was neither illegal or wrong. Yet they claim the moral high ground because the 'freed' the slaves, a farce at best.
"Being grateful for the positions you [Abraham Lincoln] have assumed, and the recommendations you [Abraham Lincoln] have made, we herein respectfully submit a few reflections intended to sustain (thought feeble may be the effort) the policy proposed..."
James Mitchell to Abraham Lincoln, May 18, 1862
Look at the context. The policy proposed did not originate from Mitchell. Mitchell is submitting his reflections on the policy proposed to him by Lincoln.
Just like Clintoon didn't really mean that misconduct was an impeachable offense. LG, I don't know how I found that quoute, I just put in the words "mac truck", "Licolnite" "treason" and found it!
Professor Walter Williams was speaking as an ECONOMIST, rather than a historian. chattal slavery was, after all, an ECONOMIC issue of major importance as well as a MORAL issue, both in the north & south.
it was the Industrial Revolution, rather than damnyankee bayonets, that DOOMED slavery in the south & north as well.
the 8-row cottonpicker, drawn by mules, could do the work of more than 100 persons (either slaves or free men); mules are MUCH cheaper to feed & house than people.
the steam powered tractor, invented in 1856 in England could do the work of 200-300 persons (sorry, N-S, one of these machines is on display at the Texas Institute of Cultures in San Antonio;the data plate on the machine reads 1863).
slavery was doomed EVERYWHERE, except in the most primative of societies, once the Industrial Revolution came to agriculture.
finally, the "abolitionists" of the northeast wanted freedom for slaves in dixie, but wanted to keep THEIRS (damnyankees have ever been really good at HYPOCRISY!). GEN U S Grant, despite what the walt brigade says, was STILL holding HIS slaves a year after Richmond fell;the Philadelphia Inquirer (the last time i looked, PA was NOT a southern state & Philadelphia was not a city in dixie.) attacked Grant in print in early 1866 for "failing yet to manumitt his slaves".
MG Benjamin "the Beast" Butler (supposedly an abolitionist himself!) in 1864 planned to use free slaves for FORCED LABOR (how is "forced labor without pay" different from chattal slavery?)for the army of occupation of LA; he said that the "slaves in Louisiana had not previously struggled diligently for their freedom, so they must be particuliarly suited to hard work, with strict and unbending supervision" and would be "convienient" to use as slave labor in "building roads, bridges,rail tressles,dockages & byways for use by the Union military forces". in the next paragraph of his staff study, Butler goes on to state that "nigras (SIC) are particuliarly fitted by nature to do heavy labor of a menial sort, which cannot be done by white persons, even under the most brutal of military discipline". FYI, Butler's signed staff study is at the African-American Museum in New Orleans.
free dixie,sw
I was surprised at Houston's words myself. He was not the one-dimensional man I had always been given to understand.
i KNOW the damnyankees would like for Professor Williams to be wrong (i'm NOT an economist, so the dis-believers should argue with Dr. williams.), but he is CORRECT about the Industrial Revolution causing the end of slavery, absent the WBTS, within 5-10 years.
one of the main ways to tell if REVISIONISTS are lying about something said by a black scholar is if they quibble with his "competence to speak on that subject", while contending that THEY are competant to comment on issues outside THEIR academic discipline. as i've said before the REVISIONIST,self-serving, arrogant,statist, self-righteous damnyankees have FOREVER been really good at HYPROCRISY & LIES.
free dixie,sw
Nice find. Butler let the cat out of the bag on more than one occasion. His words about not exchanging any Confederate prisoners even if the South were to give up their slaves they captured in Union uniform and all the prisoners at Andersonville illuminate the Federal strategy and blunt and undermine their criticism of Andersonville.
Here are words about Butler from a proclamation by Jefferson Davis:
And whereas the hostilities waged against this Confederacy by the forces of the United States under the command of said Benjamin F. Butler have borne no resemblance to such warfare as is alone permissible by the rules of international law or the usages of civilization, but have been characterized by repeated atrocities and outrages, among the large number of which the following may be cited as examples:Peaceful and aged citizens, unresisting captives and non-combatants, have been confined at hard labor, with balls and chains attached to their limbs, and are still so held, in dungeons and fortresses. Others have been subjected to a like degrading punishment for selling medicines to the sick soldiers of the Confederacy.
The soldiers of the United States have been invited and encouraged by general orders to insult and outrage the wives, the mothers, and the sisters of our citizens.
Helpless women have been torn from their homes and subjected to solitary confinement, some in fortresses and prisons and one especially on an island of barren sand under a tropical sun, have been fed with loathsome rations that had been condemned as unfit for soldiers, and have been exposed to the vilest insults.
Prisoners of war who surrendered to the naval forces of the United States on agreement that they should be released on parole have been seized and kept in close confinement.
Repeated pretexts have been sought or invented for plundering the inhabitants of the captured city by fines, levied and exacted under threat of imprisoning recusants at hard labor with ball and chain.
The entire population of the city of New Orleans have been forced to elect between starvation, by the confiscation of all their property, and taking an oath against conscience to bear allegiance to the invaders of their country.
Egress from the city has been refused to those whose fortitude withstood the test, even to lone and aged women and to helpless children; and after being ejected from their homes and robbed of their property they have been left to starve in the streets or subsist on charity.
The slaves have been driven from the plantations in the neighborhood of New Orleans till their owners would consent to share the crops with the commanding general, his brother, Andrew J. Butler, and other officers; and when such consent had been extorted the slaves have been restored to the plantations, and there compelled to work under the bayonets of guards of United States soldiers.
Where this partnership was refused armed expeditions have been sent to the plantations to rob them of every thing that was susceptible of removal, and even slaves too aged or infirm for work have, in spite of their entreaties, been forced from the homes provided by the owners and driven to wander helpless on the highway.
By a recent general order (No. 91) the entire property in that part of Louisiana lying west of the Mississippi River has been sequestrated for confiscation, and officers have been assigned to duty, with orders to gather up and collect the personal property and turn over to the proper officers upon their receipts such of said property as may be required for the use of the United States Army; to collect together all the other personal property and bring the same to New Orleans and cause it to be sold at public auction to the highest bidders"-- an order which, if executed, condemns to punishment by starvation at least a quarter of a million of human beings of all ages, sexes, and conditions; and of which the execution, although forbidden to military officers by the orders of President Lincoln, is in accordance with the confiscation law of our enemies, which he has directed to be enforced through the agency of civil officials. And, finally, the African slaves have not only been excited to insurrection by every license and encouragement, but numbers of them have actually been armed for a servile war--a war in its nature far exceeding in horrors the most merciless atrocities of the savages.
And whereas the officers under the command of the said Butler have been in many instances active and zealous agents in the commission of these crimes, and no instance is known of the refusal of any one of them to participate in the outrages above narrated
Not too surprising. Soldiers are held to a different standard than civilians are. Secession is treason. Advocating secession is treason. You don't have the right to yell "fire!" in a crowded theater and you don't have the right to advocate the violent overthrow of the government.
Do you think you've found something new to lay on President Lincoln? This is all old hat.
Walt
[Wlat] Do you think you've found something new to lay on President Lincoln? This is all old hat.
sw, notice the words of James Mitchell, Commissioner of [Black] Emigration when writing to Lincoln:
That political economist must be blind indeed; that statesman must be a shallow thinker, who cannot see a fearful future before this country, if the production of this mixed race is not checked by removal.
Walt views himself as The Big Dog LINK
I prefer to view him as a little toy poodle. There he sits, fangs bared, making like he is fearsome, and all the while laughably ridiculous. The Big Dog indeed. Woof! But maybe I shouldn't be too hard on him... he can't help it if he is genetically inferior... having been loaded up with the stupid gene.
Heck, I was just having some fun tweaking him. It can be a lot of fun. Why, just look at how ridiculous he looks right now, trying to defend James Mitchell. Ah heck, Mitchell, Lincoln, what's the difference?
Well, maybe Lincoln was better prepared than Mitchell. When Lincoln died, the only money he had on him was a five dollar bill. But Lincoln was prepared. It was a Confederate five.
Spec #1: Gross Public Dumb
-- Sandra Day O'Connor, 11/19/96
Walt
Walt
Just so we're clear on the meaning of "plain language" and the constitution, you confederate peckerhead.
Non-sequitur. Your assertion does not even remotely connect in any sensible way to the grounds on which you make it. It is outright absurd for you to expect that Blackstone would have made comments directly about the US presidency at a time prior to that presidency's initial conception, much less its existence. Besides, the US Constitution makes ZERO distinction between "high crimes and misdemeanors" committed by an appointed federal judge and "high crimes and misdemeanors" committed by an elected president. The standard is one and the same for both.
To further suggest that the founders, who did contemplate such an elective post, would simply transport Blackstone's words, untranslated into their new legal system is absurdity defined.
Standing US Supreme Court precedent says otherwise. "The interpretation of the constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history. The code of constitutional and statutory construction which, therefore, is gradually formed by the judgments of this court, in the application of the constitution and the laws and treaties made in pursuance thereof, has for its basis so much of the common law as may be implied in the subject, and constitutes a common law resting on national authority." - Smith v. Alabama, 1888
You've retreated to this defense of Blackstone's words because you cannot defend your ridiculous preposition that because someone opposed the Clinton impeachment on the constitution grounds, they're somehow a left-wing socialist.
Not at all, mac. By definition, to make a so-called "constitutional" defense of Clinton against impeachment is to employ loose construction. Legal loose construction is by definition a liberal act and concept. Therefore those who make so-called "constitutional" defenses of Clinton, yourself included, engage in what is by definition an act of liberalism.
Far from being fraudulant, I have amply shown that such opposition is well grounded in English Common law
No you haven't. You posted a second hand excerpt of a law article that invoked Blackstone's name along side claims of defense for Clinton. As I have both noted and demonstrated, to invoke Blackstone while claiming that perjury is not impeachable is to willfully defraud a reader. It is to play fast and loose with Blackstone's words and make them out to say the EXACT OPPOSITE of what exists in reality. That is loose constructionism AT ITS WORST and it is exactly what you are engaging in.
First off, YOU haven't even provided a source for that so-called quote you attribute to Houston. You posted it therefore it is your burden to provide, at minimum, a date and location for independent verification.
Second, if the quote is authentic, it does indeed disprove much of what Houston says. As to the sentiments of his own state, Texas, it DIRECTLY shows that he was dead wrong. His side lost the referendum there in a landslide despite him personally leading the campaign against secession.
It also shows that secession passed in a landslide in two other confederate states including the largest, Virginia.
From that we can further deduce several things. First, it is generally undisputed that, excluding the disputed border states where loyalties split throughout the populations, the largest hotbed of unionism within the CSA was in the Tennessee mountain regions. No other state to the south or west of there had even a remotely sizable unionist movement by comparison. Yet Tennessee, despite all those unionists, still voted to secede in a landslide.
So are you to tell me that, based upon an unsourced alleged word of Sam Houston that proved to be dead wrong in his own state and at least two others, all of the states to the south and west of Tennessee, of which not one had a unionist movement even remotely resembling the former in size, were really against secession?
Cite your sources and post your evidence. Provide specific documentation of specific acts of "irregularity."
Texas is famous for fixed elections.
Texas' "fame" for fixed elections did not occur until 1948, almost a century later, when Lyndon Johnson stuffed a rural county ballot box in order to win a senate nomination in the Democrat primary. So unless you have evidence that Landslide Lyndon's reputation extends back retroactively to several decades before he was even born, your post is a non-argument.
Precisely. As garbage_truck has been informed, to quote Blackstone as evidence against Clinton's impeachment is to commit a fraud. It is a fraud because Blackstone specifically and explicitly defined perjury as a crime against the state. When one considers Blackstone himself and not what some law students at Brigham Young selectively quote from him, there is no way around this fact. Yet if you look to garbage_truck's posts, he persists in posting the willful misquotes from BYU while simultaneously refusing the actual text of Blackstone. Thus he is assisting in fraud.
But don't admit him or anyone on the wlat brigade to admit that anytime soon. Though they are less inclined to advertise it than with Lincoln, BJ Clinton is another of their secular saints. Thus any act of defense for him, no matter how fraudulent and dishonest it may be, is permissable to achieve the end of upholding his "image."
Indeed he did not. In fact, as late as November 30, 1864 he was fighting against his own Sec. of the Interior (who contended at the time that Congress had not renewed the position) to preserve Mitchell's job. On that day Attorney General Bates responded to a now-lost request by Lincoln for an opinion permitting Mitchell to stay on board. This directly contradicts the frequent claim that Lincoln had a "change of heart" about colonization around 1863. It also gives support to the account by Benjamin Butler in early 1865 of the two discussing continued colonization policies. Idolaters like Wlat do not like to admit it but Lincoln favored colonization to his dying day.
Cite your sources and post your evidence.
"But their censure of Lincoln had a certain self-serving quality. The claim that his call for troops was the cause of the upper South's decision to secede is misleading. As the telegraph chattered reports of the attack on Sumter April 12 and its surrender the next day, huge crowds poured into the streets of Richmond, Raleigh, Nashville, and other upper South cities to celebrate this victory over the Yankees. These crowds waved Confederate flags and cheered the glorious cause of southern independence. They demanded that their own states join the cause. Scores of such demonstrations took place from April 12 to 14, before Lincoln issued his call for troops. Many conditional unionists were swept along by this powerful tide of southern nationalism; others were cowed into silence....
"The Virginia convention moved quickly to adopt an ordinance of secession, but not quickly enough for an ad hoc assembly in another Richmond Hall that called itself the 'Spontaneous Southern Rights Convention.' Passions ran high on the streets and in both convention halls. Mobs threatened violence against unionist delegates from west of the Alleghenies.
On April 17 ex-Governor Henry Wise electrified the official convention with a fiery speech. He announced that Virginia militia were at that instant seizing the federal armory at Harpers Ferry and preparing to seize the Gosport navy yard near Norfolk. At such a moment no true Virginian could hesitate; the conenvtion passed an ordinance of secession by a vote of 88 to 55." [Battle Cry of Freedom., pp. 278-79]
Bruce Catton also talks about mob violence against Union men in "The Coming Fury." I'll try and root that out.
Why would you challenge somethng so easy to prove?
Walt
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.