Jefferson Davis: beyond a statue-tory matter

The Courier-Journal ^ | July 27, 2003 | Bill Cunningham

[thatdewd]

The writer is a circuit judge who lives in Kuttawa, Ky.

KUTTAWA, Ky. - The Courier Journal, at the behest of its columnist John David Dyche, has called for the removal of the Jefferson Davis statue in the rotunda of the Kentucky State Capitol. Such a supposedly politically correct viewpoint reflects a shallow, selective and even hypocritical understanding of history.

[GOPcapitalist]

In other words, Habeas Corpus was still in effect in "States in which the administration of the laws has continued unimpaired".

Ah, but don't you see the technicality there that let ole Abe slip by? The act of Congress may say that habeas corpus was still in effect where "the administration of the laws has continued unimpaired" but it doesn't say that those "impairing" them in other states had to be confederates. Lincoln used federal troops to impair the adminstration of the laws in the states of Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri, ando others at times when all were still in the union so technically speaking I guess he could arrest people there without stating the charges!

See how it works in Wlatdom? Rule #1 states that "Lincoln is never wrong."

[nolu chan]

It was former Senator Trumbull in Presser v. State of Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886). He continued to practice law until his death in 1896.

Trumbull went to Georgia and taught school, studied law, and was admitted to the Georgia bar in 1837.

Trumbull apparently started as a Democrat, and then switched to Republican while in office. He became a Lincoln supporter and was allied with Radical Republicans. However, during the impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson he supported the President. He was with the Liberal Republican party and then returned to the Democrat party. He was a counsel for Samuel J. Tilden in the contested 1876 election.

In the election of 1855, Lincoln threw his support behind the Democrat, Lyman Trumbull.

[Non-Sequitur]

I think nolu nailed congressional awareness of the unconstitutionality of Lincoln's actions in his post above.

Nolu chan is nolu chan and he/she is welcome to his/her opinons, when you can get them. But we were talking about Ex Parte Milligan and the ruling on the suspension of habeas corpus by the Supreme Court. I submit that there is no evidence whatsoever that Congress suspended habeas corpus in Indiana knowing that it was unconstitutional.

[Non-Sequitur]

Actually, I'm not county Kentucky in that list.

Why not? The Davis regime did. Are you suggesting that their admitting Kentucky as a state in the confederacy was illegal?

[lentulusgracchus]

In the election of 1855, Lincoln threw his support behind the Democrat, Lyman Trumbull.

And here I thought Trumbull had to be a Whig in 1854......perhaps David Donald was simply inexplicit, and I inferred some nonexistent Whiggery. Stephen A. Douglas, in the few months before he contracted typhoid and died, was also a strong Lincoln supporter.

That Trumbull was a Democrat makes his appearance for Presser easier to understand. Presser vs. Illinois was a political case. Presser himself was involved with labor unionism, at a time when the Republican bosses of Illinois were using flying squads of police to bust up union halls, breaking heads and teaching the scum not to mess with the Powers That Be. This was an age in which just having someone say something about you could get you pulled out of bed in the middle of the night by a flying squad of cops, dragged down to some hotel to be interviewed by a committee of the bigwigs' hard guys, and then told to get out of Chicago if the "verdict" were unfavorable.

So even 40 years after his elevation to the Senate, old Trumbull was still in the middle of it. Too bad he lost the case -- it really hurt the Second Amendment. But then, that gaslight-era Court may have been determined to find for the law-and-order screws of the day.

[Non-Sequitur]

You're cute when you go yip, yip, yip.

Ho hum. Don't you have to go light a candle in front of your Saint Sir Jefferson of Davis statue or something?

[Non-Sequitur]

"That's not consistent with other things he said. And he grew in office and became a knight and a saint, and by the time the war was over he had spent his entire life fighting to free the slaves. Just like Lincoln."

Like what? What did Saint Sir Jefferson of Davis say and do that demonstrates a life long opposition to slavery?

[WhiskeyPapa]

I deny, Mr. President, that one branch of this Government can indemnify any other branch of the Government for a violation of the Constitution or the laws.

~ Mr. Breckinridge, July 16, 1861, pp. 137-8 ~

Think about that the next time you blast President Lincoln over Ex Parte Merryman. In the ACW era, each branch of the government interpreted the Constitution for itself. Judgements of the Supreme Court were binding only on parties to the suit. If Taney wanted to prove a point in regards to Merryman, he should have gotten the case before the whole court.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

However, unless you can show that President Lincoln and the congress knew their actions were unconstitutional when they took them then there is nothing wrong with their actions.

What?!!

"But officer, I didn't know that "speed limit" meant the maximum speed limit! I took it to mean the minimum speed limit.........by interpretation!"

That example has no application her and you know it.

-None- of the things President Lincoln did were so outside the pale -- none of them had ay precedent to suggest -- that he couldn't do them. No suit ever came to the court that overturned any action of the president's.

Don't try Vallandigham, President Lincoln had him released. Don't try Milligan, President Lincoln didn't arrest him.

President Lincoln's actions could only be chellenged by rulings of the whole Supreme Court, and they never were while he lived.

Walt

[thatdewd]

But we were talking about Ex Parte Milligan and the ruling on the suspension of habeas corpus by the Supreme Court. I submit that there is no evidence whatsoever that Congress suspended habeas corpus in Indiana knowing that it was unconstitutional.

Congress did not suspend habeas corpus in Indiana. Or any of the other "States in which the administration of the laws has continued unimpaired" (1863 Suspension of Habeas Corpus Act). This fact was specifically stated by the Supreme Court in its ruling on Ex Parte Milligan:

But it is said that the jurisdiction is complete under the "laws and usages of war"...they can never be applied to citizens in states...where the courts are open and their process unobstructed...Congress could grant no such power; and to the honor of our national legislature be it said, it has never been provoked by the state of the country even to attempt its exercise.

The Supreme Court's decision in Ex Parte Milligan not only condemns Lincoln's actions as unconstitutional, it weeds through the Congressional legal-speak of the 1863 act to point out Congress did not suspend Habeas Corpus in Indiana, and praises it for knowing it couldn't.

[PeaRidge]

"President Lincoln's actions could only be challenged by rulings of the whole Supreme Court, and they never were while he lived."

So the paralyzed Republican controlled Congress and Court system forced judgment and adjudication of Lincoln's actions into the hands of the people.

[thatdewd]

oops, I meant to ping rustbucket in post 390 (response to post 383 by Non-Sequitur), but put your name in by mistake. Sorry for cluttering your inbox. BTW, I heartily agree with rustbucket that you pretty well nailed Congressional awareness that Mr. Lincoln's actions were unconstitutional.

[PeaRidge]

You are right. There is no such thing as an intellectually curious propagandist.

Makes him a dull wit.

[nolu chan]

[Wlat] Think about that the next time you blast President Lincoln over Ex Parte Merryman. In the ACW era, each branch of the government interpreted the Constitution for itself. Judgements of the Supreme Court were binding only on parties to the suit. If Taney wanted to prove a point in regards to Merryman, he should have gotten the case before the whole court.

Lincoln's defiance of the court in Ex Parte Merryman demonstrated his criminal behavior, as confirmed by Ex Parte Milligan. It is further confirmed by the resolute refusal of Congress to ratify his unlawful acts.

If Lincoln wanted to appeal, if was his responsibility to appeal. As he did not appeal, it was his duty to comply. He chose instead to violate the law, as was his wont.

Judgements of the Supreme Court were binding only on parties to the suit. And only Jane Roe won the right to abortion.

In the ACW era, each branch of the government interpreted the Constitution for itself. Article III, Section 1, "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

[thatdewd]

Think about that the next time you blast President Lincoln over Ex Parte Merryman.

I believe you have somehow misunderstood what Mr. Breckinridge was saying (perhaps you should have read past the first sentence). He was stating that Mr. Lincoln's (the executive branch) unconstitutional actions could not be made constitutional by a simple act of Congress (the legislative branch). He is pointing out that the Constitution contained language that prohibited Mr. Lincoln from doing what he did, and which he blatantly ignored and violated. In order for his actions to become legal, the Constitution would have to be amended to remove or modify that language. How you got what you got out of what he said is beyond me.

If Taney wanted to prove a point in regards to Merryman, he should have gotten the case before the whole court.

Ridiculous. Ex Parte Merryman was the legal decision of a Federal District Court regarding a violation of the Constitution, with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presiding. If there was anyone who contested the Court's decision, they should have challenged it. But that someone didn't, did he? He simply ignored it just like he ignored the Constitution.

[rustbucket]

Here is some more evidence that Congress knew that what was going on was unconstitutional. The following concerns the use of the Lincoln military to control elections. Nolu has already posted on other threads words of Beast Butler acknowledging he prevented people from voting.

Senator Powell of KY on Jan 6, 1864 (pg 104):

I will tell my worthy friend that officers of the sixty-fifth regiment of Indiana located at that time in other precincts of that county [in Kentucky] went and took their pens and struck from the poll-book every Democratic candidate. They would allow no man to cast his vote unless he voted for the other ticket. The ticket of the Democratic Party was headed by Mr. Wycliffe, my honorable colleague during the last Congress in the other end of the Capitol, and I never heard anybody accuse him of disunionism.

These things occurred in the town and county in which I reside. I will tell the worthy Senator further, that I have in my hand proclamations defining the qualifications of voters, and prescribing oaths to be taken by the voters, in the state of Kentucky, issued by military commanders, in conflict with the qualifications and oaths prescribed by the constitution and laws of Kentucky.

Senator Saulsbury (DE) on Jan 6, 1864 (pg 105):

A military officer knows very well that in making these unconstitutional and unwarrantable orders, he intrusts (sic) their execution to comparatively irresponsible men, and the grossest oppression has resulted in their execution. I state one fact to the Senator from Indiana. I know his frankness and his candor and should like to have his opinion on it. In one of the voting districts of the county in which I live, at the opening of the polls the judge of the election announced that the military had made this order, and that he faithfully intended to execute it, and that he should administer this oath to every voter at that poll. One party in the State did not vote at all. Ninety-five persons appeared and took the oath, and nineteen belonging to the party to which the gentleman belongs refused to take the oath, although prescribed by the military, and offered to be administered by the judge of the election, and thereupon a provost marshal was sent for, who appeared on the ground and threatened to arrest the judge of elections if he administered that oath to those persons. They were, I presume, assumed to be loyal.

Senator Powell of KY on Jan 6, 1864 (pg 106):

I hold that no officer of this Government, high or low, has any power except that with which he is clothed by the Constitution, and the laws made in pursuance thereof; and whenever he transcends the power conferred by the Constitution and laws, be he President, major general, Congressmen. Senators, or any other official, he is a usurper, and a liberty-loving people will treat him as such. … I wish them to show the clause in the Constitution upon which they predicate this great power of a commander-in-chief. He does not have it, sir; he is not clothed with it; and he who executes the order, and he who makes it, are alike usurpers, and deserve to be treated as such….

Senator Saulsbury (DE) on Jan 6, 1864 (pg 102):

I, sir, had to vote under crossed bayonets; soldiers were stationed at the polls, and at some of the voting places at that election peaceable citizens were assaulted by your soldiery. At one of the voting places the judges of the election, who had declined to take the vote of an unnaturalized foreigner, who, according to the constitution and laws of our State, had not a right to vote, were threatened that if they did not take that vote the ballot-box should be broken; and the vote was taken.

Sorry to hit and run, but I'm out of here for a few days.

[thatdewd]

-None- of the things President Lincoln did were so outside the pale -- none of them had ay precedent to suggest -- that he couldn't do them.

The CONSTITUTION said he couldn't do them. Deal with it.

No suit ever came to the court that overturned any action of the president's...Don't try Milligan, President Lincoln didn't arrest him.

LOL, you're so wrong. Ex Parte Milligan did indeed rule Lincoln's actions were unconstitutional. Mr. Milligan was arrested and illegally tried SOLELY on the authority of Mr. Lincoln's actions. Mr. Milligan, a citizen of the State of Indiana, had a right to due process not only guaranteed by the Constitution but reaffirmed in the 1863 act of Congress, which did NOT suspend Habeas Corpus in Indiana or any other State where the Federal Courts were unopposed. Mr. Milligan was arrested and illegally tried SOLELY on the authority of Mr. Lincoln's actions, which the Supreme Court found to be unconstitutional.

...Don't try Vallandigham, President Lincoln had him released...

Being deported is not exactly the same as being released.

President Lincoln's actions could only be chellenged by rulings of the whole Supreme Court, and they never were while he lived.

WRONG! His actions could be deemed unconstitutional by a lower court and they were. Mr. Lincoln's actions were almost immediately ruled to be unconstitutional by the Federal District Court of Maryland, with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presiding. That ruling was never challenged in court.

[GOPcapitalist]

No, just disputed. Kentucky literally split its loyalties during the war. So did Missouri, but Missouri's legislature voted secession therefore making it the better of the two candidates for a count. If you want to go with the 13 number, by all means have at it. 11, 12, or 13 are all generally acceptable among historians. It all depends on exactly how one defines it, and for this discussion's purposes, I am using the 12 number.

[GOPcapitalist]

WRONG! His actions could be deemed unconstitutional by a lower court and they were. Mr. Lincoln's actions were almost immediately ruled to be unconstitutional by the Federal District Court of Maryland, with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presiding. That ruling was never challenged in court.

Indeed. The Federal District Court in St. Louis also ruled against Lincoln in 1861's "In Re McDonald" (Fed. Cas. No. 8,751). The ruling pertained to a man who had been unlawfully arrested by Lincoln's army during its campaign against the Missouri State Capital. As far as I know Gen. Lyons, who was Lincoln's commander, complied with the ruling.

[BenR2]

When the U.S. Army liberated Knoxville, Tennessee, cheering residents waved American flags they had hidden at risk to their lives and laid Confederate flags in the main street for their liberators to walk on.

////////////
And many merchants in NYC had Confederate leanings. So what?