Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Perspective: Die-hard Confederates should be reconstructed
St. Augustine Record ^ | 09/27/2003 | Peter Guinta

Posted on 09/30/2003 12:19:22 PM PDT by sheltonmac

The South's unconditional surrender in 1865 apparently was unacceptable to today's Neo-Confederates.

They'd like to rewrite history, demonizing Abraham Lincoln and the federal government that forced them to remain in the awful United States against their will.

On top of that, now they are opposing the U.S. Navy's plan to bury the crew of the CSS H.L. Hunley under the American flag next year.

The Hunley was the first submarine to sink an enemy vessel. In 1863, it rammed and fatally damaged the Union warship USS Housatonic with a fixed torpedo, but then the manually driven sub sank on its way home, killing its eight-man crew.

It might have been a lucky shot from the Housatonic, leaks caused by the torpedo explosion, an accidental strike by another Union ship, malfunction of its snorkel valves, damage to its steering planes or getting stuck in the mud.

In any case, the Navy found and raised its remains and plans a full-dress military funeral and burial service on April 17, 2004, in Charleston, S.C. The four-mile funeral procession is expected to draw 10,000 to 20,000 people, many in period costume or Confederate battle dress.

But the Sons of Confederate Veterans, generally a moderate group that works diligently to preserve Southern history and heritage, has a radical wing that is salivating with anger.

One Texas Confederate has drawn 1,600 signatures on a petition saying "the flag of their eternal enemy, the United States of America," must not fly over the Hunley crew's funeral.

To their credit, the funeral's organizers will leave the U.S. flag flying.

After all, the search and preservation of the Hunley artifacts, as well as the funeral itself, were paid for by U.S. taxpayers.

Also, the Hunley crew was born under the Stars and Stripes. The Confederacy was never an internationally recognized nation, so the crewmen also died as citizens of the United States.

They were in rebellion, but they were still Americans.

This whole issue is an insult to all Southerners who fought under the U.S. flag before and since the Civil War.

But it isn't the only outrage by rabid secessionists.

They are also opposing the placement of a statue of Abraham Lincoln in Richmond, Va., the Confederate capital.

According to an article by Bob Moser and published in the Southern Poverty Law Center's magazine "Intelligence Report," which monitors right-wing and hate groups, the U.S. Historical Society announced it was donating a statue of Lincoln to Richmond.

Lincoln visited that city in April 1865 to begin healing the wounds caused by the war.

The proposed life-sized statue has Lincoln resting on a bench, looking sad, his arm around his 12-year-old son, Tad. The base of the statue has a quote from his second inaugural address.

However, the League of the South and the Sons of Confederate Veterans raised a stink, calling Lincoln a tyrant and war criminal. Neo-Confederates are trying to make Lincoln "a figure few history students would recognize: a racist dictator who trashed the Constitution and turned the USA into an imperialist welfare state," Moser's article says.

White supremacist groups have jumped onto the bandwagon. Their motto is "Taking America back starts with taking Lincoln down."

Actually, if it weren't for the forgiving nature of Lincoln, Richmond would be a smoking hole in the ground and hundreds of Confederate leaders -- including Jefferson Davis -- would be hanging from trees from Fredericksburg, Va., to Atlanta.

Robert E. Lee said, "I surrendered as much to Lincoln's goodness as I did to Grant's armies."

Revisionist history to suit a political agenda is as intellectually abhorrent as whitewashing slavery itself. It's racism under a different flag. While it's not a criminal offense, it is a crime against truth and history.

I'm not talking about re-enactors here. These folks just want to live history. But the Neo-Confederate movement is a disguised attempt to change history.

In the end, the Confederacy was out-fought, out-lasted, eventually out-generaled and totally over-matched. It was a criminal idea to start with, and its success would have changed the course of modern history for the worse.

Coming to that realization cost this nation half a million lives.

So I hope that all Neo-Confederates -- 140 years after the fact -- can finally get out of their racist, twisted, angry time machine and join us here in 2003.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; US: South Carolina
KEYWORDS: crackers; csshlhunley; dixie; dixielist; fergithell; guintamafiarag; hillbillies; hlhunley; losers; neanderthals; oltimesrnotfogotten; oltimesrnotforgotten; pinheads; putthescareinthem; rednecks; scv; submarine; traitors; yankeeangst
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,141-1,1601,161-1,1801,181-1,200 ... 1,901-1,915 next last
To: Non-Sequitur
and NO nanny state to worry about either.

why are you so hung up on court activism???? do you REALLY believe the few UN-accountable judges opinion is BETTER than the decisions of the voters or the decisions of the various legislatures, elected by the voters???

"majority rule" should be the general rule in republics. every time the court has gotten involved there have been un-intended consequences of almost every decision;hardly ANY of those consequences have been good.

fyi, i believe that judges should stand for election every 4 years AND that NO judge should sit on the bench for more than a combined TOTAL of 10 years.

free dixie,sw

1,161 posted on 10/16/2003 8:55:05 AM PDT by stand watie (Resistence to tyrants is obedience to God. -Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1160 | View Replies]

To: HenryLeeII
EXACTLY!

free dixie,sw

1,162 posted on 10/16/2003 8:56:45 AM PDT by stand watie (Resistence to tyrants is obedience to God. -Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1129 | View Replies]

To: Held_to_Ransom
why are you still here, FOOL??

why don't you head back over to DU, where fools & revisionists dwell???

free dixie,sw

1,163 posted on 10/16/2003 8:59:19 AM PDT by stand watie (Resistence to tyrants is obedience to God. -Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1132 | View Replies]

To: Held_to_Ransom
yet another STUPID comment!

free dixie,sw

1,164 posted on 10/16/2003 9:00:26 AM PDT by stand watie (Resistence to tyrants is obedience to God. -Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1136 | View Replies]

To: HenryLeeII
EXACTLY!

free dixie,sw

1,165 posted on 10/16/2003 9:01:13 AM PDT by stand watie (Resistence to tyrants is obedience to God. -Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1138 | View Replies]

To: Held_to_Ransom
After Sumtner, all southerners of draft age were classified as conscripts subject to Davis's calls, though subject to specific draft exemptions such as jobs deemed necessary to defense.

See, I thought just the opposite. That even though this law was passed, the states did withhold their militias. I know the Georgia governor did it... and the Georgia state militia did not fire a shot until Sherman invaded Georgia.

1,166 posted on 10/16/2003 9:02:29 AM PDT by carton253 (To win the War on Terror, we must, at once, raise the black flag!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1136 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Now I admit that I'm late to this discussion but what point are you making?

Reponding to wlat's desire to selectively include the CSA in the union.

1,167 posted on 10/16/2003 9:16:26 AM PDT by Gianni
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1157 | View Replies]

To: 4ConservativeJustices
He doesn't state that their right to do so is unconstitutional nor illegal.

He just calls the secessionists traitors.

Walt

1,168 posted on 10/16/2003 10:52:29 AM PDT by WhiskeyPapa (Virtue is the uncontested prize.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1150 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
He just calls the secessionists traitors.

Obiter dicta, contrary to his later holding. Article III § 2 states:

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

The court certainly didn't refer to any trials establishing the fact of treason, nor were there any trials for the 9 million secessionists.

1,169 posted on 10/16/2003 11:17:40 AM PDT by 4CJ (Come along chihuahua, I want to hear you say yo quiero taco bell. - Nolu Chan, 28 Jul 2003)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1168 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
I am telling you what the founding fathers intended.

No you're not. The Founders did not include anything about secession being prohibited.

1,170 posted on 10/16/2003 12:42:48 PM PDT by HenryLeeII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1139 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
You cannot point to a section of the Constitution which specifically allows secession any more than I can point to a section which specifically prohibits it. So we both rely on interpretations of various sections to support our position. The difference is that the Supreme Court held the same position that I did, and it ruled that the position you hold is incorrect.

No. The Founders specifically included powers for Congress to oversee the admittance of new states, but not prohibiting secession (unilateral or otherwise). The Tenth Amendment reserves all powers not granted to the federal government to the states. That's not my opinion, its fact, which is more than the Supreme Court displayed in their opinion.

1,171 posted on 10/16/2003 12:45:47 PM PDT by HenryLeeII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1142 | View Replies]

To: carton253
See, I thought just the opposite.

A common misconception, no doubt with roots in the Democratic Party history of the US.

That even though this law was passed, the states did withhold their militias.

Not so. There was widespread resistance to the law, but the law was indeed passed and the resistance took hold in both open defiance of the draft as well as the passing of state laws that expanded the loopholes to the various conscription acts that followed.

I know the Georgia governor did it... and the Georgia state militia did not fire a shot until Sherman invaded Georgia

There is a germ of truth in that, but not the whole truth by any means. Governor Brown was the leading advocate of state's rights among the southern governers, and he is famous for his exchange of letters with Davis on the topic. Militia officers were exempt from the draft, primarily as the central government withheld the right to appoint officers. What Brown did was to vastly expand the list of militia officers in his state. It was estimated that at the time of Sherman's invasion there were some 15 to 20 thousand militia officers in the state, and when called up they had a hell of a time trying to figure out who ranked who. The matter was settled when the Confederacy ordered them to just elect officers or face National Conscription. They quickly elected officers, but no, they didn't do a whole lot of fighting, and they did stop their pursuit of Sherman at the state line.

There is no question but that at the time of Shermna's visit to Atlanta, there were more men of Georgia with draft exemptions than there were men of Georgia in the militia and Confederate army combined. Howell Cobb thought that if the Confederacy could have gotten all the available men into service (not just in Georgia, but in all the traitor states) that the war could easily have been won. I would tend to agree with him.

Of course, besides the southern men in open opposition to the draft, (many formed their own local militia's and simply 'fragged' the National Conscription officers, the men dodging the wars with deferments, and the men who let themselves be conscripted into the Confederate service, there were also very large numbers of men who enlisted in the Union Army. The pension roles of the US Army carried over 200,000 residents of southern states, and one should remember that anyone who had once been conscripted into the Confederate Army could desert and then enlist in the Union Army, but that they were then not eligible for US Army pensions. THis last fact later became an important political item in southern politics, and led to much confusion with many who had fought only for the Confederacy claiming that because they had only conscripted to do so that they should have been entitled to apply for a US Army pension even though they were never members of the US Army.

1,172 posted on 10/16/2003 1:32:22 PM PDT by Held_to_Ransom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1166 | View Replies]

To: 4ConservativeJustices
Why should I? You have yet to post any document that proves they were draftees - not volunteers - and that their terms were for 3 years.<

That proves it. You don't know your history for beans. LOL>>>>....

Try the Journal of the Confederate Congress, II, 154; V, 228.

1,173 posted on 10/16/2003 2:19:50 PM PDT by Held_to_Ransom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1148 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
"Their opinion matters a lot, yours matters very little."

And yours matters not at all.

1,174 posted on 10/16/2003 3:39:26 PM PDT by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1139 | View Replies]

To: Held_to_Ransom
That proves it. You don't know your history for beans. LOL>>>>...

No, it just proves you can't read, and don't understand your that the acts in question did not apply to "ALL" Confederates, and that they could still volunteer. Senate Bill 32 (p. 153):

On motion by Mr. Baker, to amend the bill by inserting:

Sec. --. All persons subject to enrollment, who are not now in the service, under the provisions of this act, shall be permitted, previous to such enrollment, to volunteer in companies now in the service,

It was determined in the affirmative.

Vol V, pp. 219-220

All of the persons aforesaid who are now in the armies of the Confederacy... [many were in STATE militias]

Provided, however, That all such companies, squadrons, battalions, and regiments, whose term of original enlistment was for twelve months, shall have the right, within forty days, on a day to be fixed by the commander of the brigade, to reorganize said companies, battalions, and regiments. [swap units]

Provided further, That all persons under the age of eighteen years or over the age of thirty-five years, who are now enrolled in the military service of the Confederate States, in the regiments, battalions, and companies hereafter to be reorganized, shall be required to remain in their respective companies, battalions, and regiments for ninety days, unless their places can be sooner supplied by other recruits not now in the service.


1,175 posted on 10/16/2003 3:45:12 PM PDT by 4CJ (Come along chihuahua, I want to hear you say yo quiero taco bell. - Nolu Chan, 28 Jul 2003)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1173 | View Replies]

To: 4ConservativeJustices
You have yet to post any document that proves they were draftees - not volunteers - and that their terms were for 3 years.

That seems to be the style with this particular poster. Held_to_Ransom aka Who_Is_George_Salt aka titus_fikus aka LLAN-DDEUSSANT aka Mortin_sult among other things rarely if ever posts so much as a single source to substantiate his/hers/its habituously gratuitous and intentionally inflamatory remarks on this forum.

1,176 posted on 10/16/2003 5:48:11 PM PDT by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1148 | View Replies]

To: 4ConservativeJustices
Sec. --. All persons subject to enrollment, who are not now in the service, under the provisions of this act, shall be permitted, previous to such enrollment, to volunteer in companies now in the service, It was determined in the affirmative. Vol V, pp. 219-220

Right. They are all drafted, but if they want to elect officers or collect a bounty they have about a month to 'volunteer.' Big diff. What kind of choice is that?

All of the persons aforesaid who are now in the armies of the Confederacy... [many were in STATE militias] Provided, however, That all such companies, squadrons, battalions, and regiments, whose term of original enlistment was for twelve months, shall have the right, within forty days, on a day to be fixed by the commander of the brigade, to reorganize said companies, battalions, and regiments. [swap units]

No, not swap units. That's your edit. Reorganize. There's a very significant difference. But just the same, here are the earlier state conscripts (ones told to volunteer) being drafted into national service.

Provided further, That all persons under the age of eighteen years or over the age of thirty-five years, who are now enrolled in the military service of the Confederate States, in the regiments, battalions, and companies hereafter to be reorganized, shall be required to remain in their respective companies, battalions, and regiments for ninety days, unless their places can be sooner supplied by other recruits not now in the service.

Yes, some of the young and older were not drafted into the national units for more than 90 days at that point in time. They were, however all drafted again.

Think of it like paying taxes, which is another Democratic trick like your Confederat draft system. You don't have to legally do it, but if you don't, you will be prosecuted. Now, if you please, volunteer your taxes by April 15th to avoid any further penalty.

Who thought that up? The same guy that wrote your jackass history, Woodrow Wilson. He drafted the state militia's into federal service for eight years. Lincoln never drafted any state units into Fedearal service.

Thanks for verifying my point. Now if you could only understand what you posted.

1,177 posted on 10/16/2003 7:23:50 PM PDT by Held_to_Ransom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1175 | View Replies]

To: Held_to_Ransom; 4ConservativeJustices
No, not swap units. That's your edit. Reorganize. There's a very significant difference.

Here's a newsflash for you Llan-ey: The confederate constitution permitted the CSA government to "provide for organizing" of the state militias and to call up their use to be "employed in the service of the Confederate States." That is not a "draft" by any reasonable sense of the term.

That is simply an exercise of the confederate CONSTITUTIONAL jurisdiction over its militias. The constitution said they could pass laws organizing those militias into a military. It said they could pass laws placing them into the command of the CSA. And that is exactly what the CSA congress did.

That you evidently find this provision to be offensive is further evidence of your own historical ignorance as that clause was essentially taken verbatim out of the 1787 US Constitution's Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 with the name "United States" replaced by "Confederate States." If you have a problem with the way the confederates set up their army through the CS constitution then you also have a problem with the way the founders did it in the US constitution.

As for the wholly unsubstantiated and unsourced remainder of your rant I hereby banish it in a word. Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur. And do have a nice day!

1,178 posted on 10/16/2003 10:19:12 PM PDT by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1177 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
That is simply an exercise of the confederate CONSTITUTIONAL jurisdiction over its militias. The constitution said they could pass laws organizing those militias into a military. It said they could pass laws placing them into the command of the CSA. And that is exactly what the CSA congress did

But the Konfederat KonsKription AKt was not part of the Konfederat Konstitution, but a separate aKt of the Konfederat Kongress. And, it explicitly conscripted all men between the ages of 18 and 35, whether in the service of the National government or the state at the whim of the Davis GOvernment. That's KonsKription GopKapotalist, and nothing else. No Konfederat Kould ever say he served with honor beKause of it.

1,179 posted on 10/16/2003 11:39:55 PM PDT by Held_to_Ransom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1178 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa; 4ConservativeJustices; HenryLeeII
4CJ, HLII, ping to you in case you may desire to add your legal expertise or correct me if I am in error.

Edward Steers, Jr., Blood on the Moon, University Press of Kentucky, 2001, pp. 210-211

Publication made possible in part by a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities

Most important to the case of the Lincoln conspirators, a person may be a member of an unlawful consipracy without knowing all of the details of the conspiracy or even all of the other members. If a person understands the unlawful nature of a plan and willingly joins in the plan, even if only on one occasion, it is sufficient to convict the individuals for conspiracy even though that person played only a minor role. The law further states that when a felony has been committed in pursuance of a conspiracy that had as its design only a misdemeanor, the misdemeanor becomes merged into the felony.5

Simply stated, if the intent of the conspiracy is to kidnap and a homicide occurs as a result of the conspiracy, the crime becomes one of homicide, not kidnapping. The aims of the conspiracy may shift or evolve. This last point is especially important when considering the case of the Lincoln conspirators. Booth's original conspiracy to capture shifted to one of murder.

One other aspect of the law needs to be recognized, and that is the concept of "vicarious liability." This concept states that any one person involved in a consipracy is liable for the actions of another, even though the first person was not directly responsible for the ultimate actions of the other.

And finally, a person may only withdraw from a conspiracy by making a meaningful effort to prevent the consipracy from ultimately taking place. Having a change of heart and simply walking away from a conspiracy is not sufficient in the eyes of the law to absolve a conspirator.

This law clearly applies to those charged and tried as co-conspirators with John Wilkes Booth in the murder of Abraham Lincoln. While some of the conspirators may have thought they were participating only in a plot to kidnap the president and while others believed they had abandoned the plot, they were still involved in the eyes of the law.

The eventual murder of Abraham Lincoln could have been prevented if any of the conspirators had gone to the proper authorities and exposed the plot along with the plotters. No one did.

On May 1, President Johnson issued an executive order directing that the persons charged with Abraham Lincoln's murder stand trial before a military commission. Johnson's order rested on Attorney General James Speed's decision that the accused were "enemy belligerents" and not citizens. There alleged offenses were military in nature and had a military objective: to adversely affect the war effort of the Northern military. It was a decision that appears to have been more influenced by Stanton that by Speed.

[footnote 5] United States Criminal Code, chap. 18 (sic), sec. 371.

TITLE 18 § 371
|LINK|

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

United States Code
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 19 - CONSPIRACY

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

U.S. Code as of: 01/22/02

Section 371. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor.

Now let's look at what a real legal hornbook on criminal law says.

CRIMINAL LAW, Wayne R. LaFave and Austin W. Scott, Jr., West Publishing Co., Hornbook Series, Student Edition, 1986, pages 590-1.

Forseeability of Other Crimes.

The question considered above as to whether liability for the conspiracy also suffices for accomplice liability with regard to any crimes committed in pursuance of the conspiracy is, as was suggested, a means for testing the outer limits of the act requirement for accomplice liability. A somewhat similar question is whether, on an accomplice liability theory, one may be held accountable for a crime because it was a natural and probably consequence of the crime which that person intneded to aid or encourage. this tests the outer limits of the mental state requirement for accomplice liability, for it asks, in effect, whether an intent with respect to one offense should suffice as to another offense which was the consequence of the one intended.

The established rule, as it is usually stated by courts and commentators, is that accomplice liability extends to acts of the principal in the first degree which were a "natural and probably consequence" of the criminal scheme the accomplice encouraged or aided. Some accomplice liability statutes, even in recent recodifications, expressly adopt this position. Under this approach, if A counsels or aids B in the commission of a burglary or a robbery of C and B encounters resistance from C and thus shoots at him in the course of the burglary or robbery, A is an accomplice to attempted murder. On the other hand, if A is an accomplice in a scheme to steal a safe from a building, and one of the other parties, B, takes it upon himself while alone to also rob the watchman in the building, A is not an accomplice to the robbery.

DISCUSSION

Simply stated, if the intent of the conspiracy is to kidnap and a homicide occurs as a result of the conspiracy, the crime becomes one of homicide, not kidnapping. The aims of the conspiracy may shift or evolve. This last point is especially important when considering the case of the Lincoln conspirators. Booth's original conspiracy to capture shifted to one of murder.

Booth's original conspiracy to kidnap Lincoln did NOT shift to a murder conspiracy. Booth hatched a second conspiracy, with much more limited membership, to murder Lincoln.

In the Lincoln assassination, the murder of Lincoln did NOT result due to any act in furtherance of any conspiracy to KIDNAP Lincoln. On April 14, 1865 Booth did not take any act intended to KIDNAP Lincoln.

The assassination of Lincoln was not a natural or probable consequence of any conspiracy to KIDNAP Lincoln.

Someone such as Dr. Mudd, unaware of Booth's plot to murder Lincoln, is not criminally culpable as a member of any conspiracy to murder Lincoln.

Even were it shown that Mudd had agreed to assist Booth in an attempt to KIDNAP Lincoln, Lincoln's death is certainly not attributable to any kidnap attempt by Booth.

It is impossible to maintain that on April 14, 1865 a homicide occurred as a result of a kidnapping conspiracy. There was no attempt to kidnap. No homicide occurred as the proximate cause or as the natural or probable consequence of any act taken in furtherance of any kidnap conspiracy.

One other aspect of the law needs to be recognized, and that is the concept of "vicarious liability." This concept states that any one person involved in a conspiracy is liable for the actions of another, even though the first person was not directly responsible for the ultimate actions of the other.

"Vicarious Liability: The imposition of liability on one person for the actionable conduct of another, based solely on a relationship between the two persons. Indirect or imputed legal responsibility for acts of another; for example, the liability of an employer for the acts of an employee, or, a principal for torts and contracts of an agent."
Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition

Vicarious Liability: The imputation of liability upon one person for the actions of another. In tort law, if an employee, EE, while in the scope of his employment for employer, ER, drives a delivery truck, and hits and injures P crossing the street, ER will be vicariously liable, under the doctrine of respondeat superior, for injuries sustained by P. In criminal law, in some jurisictions, if EE, who is employed by ER as a bartender, sells liquor to a minor, ER will be criminally liable for the offense of EE.
Law Dictionary, Second Edition, Steven H. Gifis

CRIMINAL LAW, Second Edition, Wayne R. LaFave and Austin W. Scott, Jr.
Hornbook Series, West Publishing Co., Student Edition, 1986
Pages 250-55

§ 3.9 Liability Without Fault -- Vicarious Liability

The last section considered one time of criminal liability based upon conduct withoutfault on the part of the defendant -- the strict liability crime. Now we consider another type of such criminal liability, where the defendant, generally one conducting a business, is made aliable, though without personal fault, for the bad conduct of someone else, generally his employee.

* * *

Although virtually all of the statutes expressly imposing vicarious liability do so only in the context of an employer-employee relationship, this is not inevitably the case. There are, for example, statutes which hold the registered owners of vehicles vicariously liable for parking and similar violations involving their vehicles.

* * *

Vicarious liability is imposed because of the nature and inherent danger of certain business activities and the difficulties of establishing actual fault in the operation of such businesses. A fine, unlike imprisonment, is less personal and is more properly viewed as a penalty on the business enterprise.

* * *

The reason for enacting vicarious-liability statutory crimes, imposing liability upon innocent and careful employers for the conduct of their employees acting within the scope of their employers' business, are the same as those which underlie strict-liability crimes. That the employer knew of or authorized the employee's conduct is sometimes difficult to prove, so the legislature makes the matters of knowledge and authorization irrelevant.

One involved in a conspiracy is only liable for actions taken by another in furtherance of the conspiracy to which he is a member. As one cannot show that Mudd joined a conspiracy to murder Lincoln, one cannot show Mudd was liable for actions taken by Booth in furtherance of such a conspiracy of which Mudd was unaware.

This law clearly applies to those charged and tried as co-conspirators with John Wilkes Booth in the murder of Abraham Lincoln. While some of the conspirators may have thought they were participating only in a plot to kidnap the president and while others believed they had abandoned the plot, they were still involved in the eyes of the law.

This is a pantsload.

Only those who joined Booth in a plot to murder Lincoln were legally involved in said murder conspiracy.

Regarding the crime of murder, at the time of the trial, "A person is not constructively present at an overt act of treason, unless he be aiding and abetting at the fact, or ready to do so, if necessary" 4 Cr. 492
From closing argument of Thomas Ewing, Jr., attorney for Samuel Mudd.

Regarding the crime of treasonable conspiracy, "the crime of treasonable conspiracy, which is defined by the law of 21st July 1861, and made punishable by fine not exceeing $6,000, and imprisonment not exceeding six years."
From closing argument of Thomas Ewing, Jr., attorney for Samuel Mudd.

Regarding the crime of accessory after the fact, "If a person supply a felon with food, or other necessaries for his sustenance, or professionally attend him sick or wounded, though he know him to be a felon, these acts will not be sufficient to make a party an accessory after the fact." Wharton's American Criminal Law, page 73.
From closing argument of Thomas Ewing, Jr., attorney for Samuel Mudd.

"The prosecution appears to have been instituted and conducted under the proclamation of the Secretary of War, of April 20, 1865. this makes it a crime, punishable with death, to harbor or screen Booth, Atzerodt, or Herold, or to aid or assist them to escape. It makes it a crime to do a particular act, and punishes that crime with death. I suppose we must take this proclamation as law. ... Admitting the Secretary's proclamation to be the law, it, of course, either supersedes or defines the unknown something or nothing which the Judge Advocate calls "the common law of war." If so, it is a definite, existing thing, and I can defend my clients against it; and it is easy to show that Dr. Mudd is not guilty of violating that proclamation. He did not, after the date of the proclamation, see either of the parties named therein -- dress the wound of Booth or point out the way to Herold -- and the proclamation relates to future acts, not to the past.

And finally, a person may only withdraw from a conspiracy by making a meaningful effort to prevent the consipracy from ultimately taking place. Having a change of heart and simply walking away from a conspiracy is not sufficient in the eyes of the law to absolve a conspirator.

CRIMINAL LAW, Second Edition, Wayne R. LaFave and Austin W. Scott, Jr.
Hornbook Series, West Publishing Co., Student Edition, 1986
Pages 593-4.

§ 6.8(d)

(d) Withdrawal From the Crime.

One who has given aid or counsel to a criminal scheme sufficient to otherwise be liable for the offense as an accomplice may sometimes escape liability by withdrawing from the crime. A mere change of heart, flight from he crime scene, or an uncommunicated decision not to carry out his part of the scheme will not suffice. Rather, it is necessary that he (1) repudiate his prior aid, or (2) do all that is possible to countermand his prior aid or counsel, and (3) do so before the chain of events has become unstoppable. If the prior aid consisted of supplying materials to be used in commission of the offense, effective withdrawal may require that these materials be reqcquired so as to prevent their use by the principal. On the other hand, if one's prior efforts were limited to requesting or encouraging commission of the crime, then an intention to withdraw communicated to the others will be sufficient. In the alternative, in either case an effective withdrawal might also be possible by timely warning to the police or similar actions directed toward preventing the others from committing the crime. It is not necessary that the crime actually have been prevented.

THE CHARGES

CHARGE. -- For maliciously, unlawfully, and traitorously, and in aid of the existing armed rebellion against the United States of America, on or before the 6th day of March, A.D. 1865, and on divers other days between that day and the 15th day of April, A.D. 1865, combining, confederating, and conspiring together with one John H. Surratt, John Wilkes Booth, Jefferson Davis, George N. Sanders, Beverly Tucker, Jacob Thompson, William C. Cleary, Clement C. Clay, George Harper, George Young, and others unknown, to kill and murder, within the Military Department of Washington, and within the fortified and intrenched lines thereof, Abraham Lincoln, late, and at the time of said combining, confederating, and conspiring, President of the United States of America, and Commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy thereof; Andrew Johnson, now Vice-President of the United States aforesaid; William H. Seward, Secreatry of State of the United States aforesaid; and Ulysses S. Grant, Lieutenant-General of the Army of the United States aforesaid, then in command of the Armies of the United States, under the direction of the said Abraham Lincoln; and in pursuance of and in prosecuting said malicious, unlawful, and traitorous conspiracy aforesaid, and in aid of said rebellion, afterward, to-wit, on the 14th day of April, A.D. 1865, within the Military Department of Washington aforesaid, and within the fortified and intrenched lines of said Military Department, together with said John Wilkes Booth and John H. Surratt, maliciously, unlawfully, and traitorously murdering the said Abraham Lincoln, then President of the United States and Commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, as aforesaid; and maliciously, unlawfully, and traitorously assaulting, with intent to kill and murder, the said William H. Seward, then Secretary of State of the United States, as aforesaid; and lying in wait with intent maliciously, unlawfully, and traitorously to kill and murder the said Andrew Johnson, then being Vice-President of the United States; and the said Ulysses S. Grant, then being Lieutenant-General, and in command of the Armies of the United States, as aforesaid.

ONE OF THE SPECIFICATIONS AGAINST MUDD

And in further prosecution of said conspiracy, the said Samuel a. Mudd did, at Washington City, and within the military department and military lines aforesaid, on or before the 6th day of march, .A.D. 1865, and on divers other days and times between that day and the 20th day of April, A.D. 1865, advise, encourage, receive, entertain, harbor, and conceal, aid and assist the said John Wilkes Booth, David E. Herold, Lewis Payne, John H. Surratt, Michael O'Laughlin, George A. Atzerodt, Mary E. Surratt, and Samuel Arnold, and their confederates, with knowledge of the murderous and traitorous conspiracy aforesaid, and with the intent to aid, abet, and assist them in the execution thereof, and in escaping from justice after the murder of the said Abraham Lincoln, in pursuance of said conspiracy in manner aforesaid.

FROM THE CLOSING ARGUMENT OF PROSECUTOR JOHN BINGHAM

If this conspiracy was thus entered into by the accused; if John Wilkes Booth did kill and murder Abraham Lincoln in pursuance thereof; if Lewis Payne did, in pursuance of said conspiracy, assault, with intent to kill and murder, William H. Seward, as stated, and if the several parties accused did commit the several acts alleged against them in the prosecution of said conspiracy, whether present at the time of its execution or not, whether on trial before this Court or not, are alike guilty of the several acts done by each in the execution of the common design. What these conspirators did in the execution of this conspiracy by the had of one of their co-conspirators they did themselves; his act, done in the prosecution of the common design, was the act of all the parties to the treasonable combination, because done in execution and furtherance of their guilty and treasonable agreement.

The U.S. Government did not allege any kidnapping conspiracy. They alleged it was all a murder conspiracy. Many documents currently available make known the existence of a kidnap plot. Booth's Diary documented a kidnap plot. April 13/14: "Until to day nothing was ever thought of sacrificing to our country's wrongs. For six months we had worked to capture."

The diary was suppressed from the trial, the Congress and the public. With certainty, it had been delivered to Edwin Stanton. Stanton allegedly gave it into the possession of Thomas T. Eckert, Assistant Secretary of War. In 1867, the existence of Booth's diary was made publically known by the former head of the National Detective Police, Lafayette C. Baker. Baker said he tendered the diary intact, with no pages missing. A political firestorm broke loose. When Congress demanded the diary, it was finally produced. It is missing 43 sheets or 86 pages.

BOUVIER'S LAW DICTIONARY, 1856 EDITION

TREASON, crim. law. This word imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of allegiance. 4 Bl. Com. 75.

2. The constitution of the United States, art. 3, s. 3, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war (q. v.) against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death.

Act of April 30th, 1790, 1 Story's Laws U. S. 83. By the same article of the constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. Vide, generally, 3 Story on the Const. ch. 39, p. 667; Serg. on the Const. ch. 30; United States v. Fries, Pamph.; 1 Tucker's Blackst. Comm. Appen. 275, 276; 3 Wils. Law Lect. 96 to 99; Foster, Disc. I; Burr's Trial; 4 Cranch, R. 126, 469 to 508; 2 Dall. R. 246; 355; 1 Dall. Rep. 35; 3 Wash. C. C. Rep. 234; 1 John. Rep. 553 11 Johns. R. 549; Com. Dig. Justices, K; 1 East, P. C. 37 to 158; 2 Chit. Crim. Law, 60 to 102; Arch. Cr. Pl. 378 to 387.

CONSPIRACY, crim. law, torts. An agreement between two or more persons to do an unlawful act, or an act which may become by the combination injurious to others. Formerly this offence was much more circumscribed in its meaning than it is now. Lord Coke describes it as "a consultation or agreement between two or more to appeal or indict an innocent person falsely and maliciously, whom accordingly they cause to be indicted or appealed and afterwards the party is acquitted by the verdict of twelve men."

2. The crime of conspiracy, according to its modern interpretation, may be of two kinds, Damely, conspiracies against the public, or such as endanger the public health, violate public morals, insult public justice, destroy the public peace, or affect public trade or business. See 3 Burr. 1321.

3. To remedy these evils the guilty persons may be indicted in the name of the commonwealth. Conspiracies against individuals are such as have a tendency to injure them in their persons, reputation, or property. The remedy in these cases is either by indictment or by a civil action.

4. In order to reader the offence complete, there is no occasion that any act should be done in pursuance of the unlawful agreement entered into between the parties, or that any one should have been defrauded or injured by it. The conspiracy is the gist of the crane. 2 Mass. R. 337; Id. 538 6 Mass. R. 74; 3 S. & R. 220 4 Wend. R. 259; Halst. R. 293 2 Stew. Rep. 360; 5 Harr. & John. 317 8 S. & R. 420. But see 10 Verm. 353.

5. By the laws of the United State's, St. 1825, c. 76, Sec. 23, 3 Story's L. U. S., 2006, a willful and corrupt conspiracy to cast away, burn or otherwise destroy any ship or vessel. with intent to injure any underwriter thereon, or the goods on board thereof, or any lender of money on such vessel, on bottomry or respondentia, is, by the laws of the United States, made felony, and the offender punishable by fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars, and by imprisonment and confinement at hard labor, not exceeding ten years.

6. By the Revised Statutes of New York, vol. 2, p. 691, 692, it is enacted, that if any two or more persons shall conspire, either, 1. To commit any offence; or, 2. Falsely and maliciously to indict another for any offence; or, 3. Falsely to move or maintain any suit; or, 4. To cheat and defraud any person of any property, by any means which are in themselves criminal; or, 5. To cheat and defraud any person of any property, by means which, if executed, would amount to a cheat, or to obtaining property by false pretences; or, 6. To commit any act injurious to the public health, to public morals, or to trade and commerce, or for the perversion or obstruction of justice, or the due administration of the laws; they shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor. No other conspiracies are there punishable criminally. And no agreement, except to commit a felony upon the person of another, or to commit arson or burglary, shall be deemed a conspiracy, unless some act besides such agreement be done to effect the object thereof, by one or more of the parties to such agreement.

7. When a felony has been committed in pursuance of a conspiracy, the latter, which is only a misdemeanor, is merged in the former; but when a misdemeanor only has been committed in pursuance of such conspiracy, the two crimes being of equal degree, there can be no legal technical merger. 4 Wend. R. 265. Vide 1 Hawk. 444 to 454; 3 Chit. Cr. Law, 1138 to 1193 3 Inst. 143 Com. Dig. Justices of the Peace, B 107; Burn's Justice, Conspiracy; Williams' Justice, Conspiracy; 4 Chit. Blacks. 92; Dick. Justice Conspiracy, Bac. Ab. Actions on the Case, G 2 Russ. on Cr. 553 to 574 2 Mass. 329 Id. 536 5 Mass. 106 2 D R. 205; Whart. Dig. Conspiracy; 3 Serg. & Rawle, 220; 7 Serg. & Rawle, 469 4 Halst. R. 293; 5 Harr. & Johns. 317 4 Wend. 229; 2 Stew. R. 360;1 Saund. 230, u. 4. For the French law, see Merl. Rep. mot Conspiration Code Penal, art. 89.

CONSPIRATORS. Persons guilty of a conspiracy. See 3 Bl. Com. 126-71 Wils. Rep. 210-11. See Conspiracy.


1,180 posted on 10/17/2003 12:56:10 AM PDT by nolu chan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 980 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,141-1,1601,161-1,1801,181-1,200 ... 1,901-1,915 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson