Perspective: Die-hard Confederates should be reconstructed

St. Augustine Record ^ | 09/27/2003 | Peter Guinta

[Non-Sequitur]

John Wilkes Booth died at about sunrise on Wednesday, April 26, 1865, on the porch of Richard Garrett's house near Port Royal, Virginia. He had been shot through the neck by Sergeant Boston Corbett. As Dr. Edward Steers, Jr. writes in The Escape & Capture of John Wilkes Booth, "All the evidence to date suggests that he (Corbett) was in the right position at the right time, and he acted from the belief that he was doing exactly what was expected of a soldier facing the enemy." At about 8:30 A.M. Booth's remains were sewn up in a horse blanket and placed on a wide plank which served as a stretcher. An old market wagon was obtained nearby, and the body was placed in the wagon. Using the wagon the body was taken to Belle Plain. There it was hoisted up the side and swung upon the deck of a steamer named the John S. Ide and transported up the Potomac River to Alexandria where it was transferred to a government tugboat. The tugboat carried the remains of Abraham Lincoln's assassin to the Washington Navy Yard, and the corpse was placed aboard the monitor Montauk at 1:45 A.M. on Thursday, April 27.

Once aboard the Montauk Booth's remains were laid out on an improvised bier (a rough carpenter's bench). The horse blanket was removed, and a tarpaulin was placed over the body. A number of witnesses were called to identify the body. Below is a sketch which appeared in Harper's Weekly on May 13, 1865.

Within a short time, several people who knew Booth personally positively identified the body which was haggard from 12 days of riding, rowing, and hiding in underbrush. One of these people was Dr. John Frederick May. Some time prior to the assassination, Dr. May had removed a large fibroid tumor from Booth's neck. Dr. May found a scar from his operation on the corpse's neck exactly where it should have been. Booth's dentist, Dr. William Merrill, who had filled two teeth for Booth shortly before the assassination, pried open the corpse's mouth and positively identified his fillings. Charles Dawson, the clerk at the National Hotel where Booth was staying, examined the remains, saying "I distinctly recognize it as the body of J. Wilkes Booth - first, from the general appearance, next, from the India-ink letters, 'J.W.B.,' on his wrist, which I had very frequently noticed, and then by a Scar on the neck. I also recognize the vest as that of J. Wilkes Booth." (As a boy Booth had his initials indelibly tattooed on the back of his left hand between his thumb and forefinger). Seaton Munroe, a prominent Washington attorney who knew Booth, viewed the body and said that he "was very familiar with his (Booth's) face and distinctly recognize it." Alexander Gardner, a well-known Washington photographer, and his assistant, Timothy H. O'Sullivan, were also among those called to the Montauk to identify Booth's corpse.

John Wilkes Booth's autopsy was performed aboard the Montauk by Surgeon General Joseph K. Barnes and Dr. Joseph Janvier Woodward. On April 27, 1865, Dr. Barnes wrote the following account to Secretary of War Edwin Stanton:

Sir,

I have the honor to report that in compliance with your orders, assisted by Dr. Woodward, USA, I made at 2 PM this day, a postmortem examination of the body of J. Wilkes Booth, lying on board the Monitor Montauk off the Navy Yard.

The left leg and foot were encased in an appliance of splints and bandages, upon the removal of which, a fracture of the fibula (small bone of the leg) 3 inches above the ankle joint, accompanied by considerable ecchymosis, was discovered.

The cause of death was a gun shot wound in the neck - the ball entering just behind the sterno-cleido muscle - 2 1/2 inches above the clavicle - passing through the bony bridge of fourth and fifth cervical vertebrae - severing the spinal chord (sic) and passing out through the body of the sterno-cleido of right side, 3 inches above the clavicle.

Paralysis of the entire body was immediate, and all the horrors of consciousness of suffering and death must have been present to the assassin during the two hours he lingered.

Dr. Woodward wrote the following detailed account of the autopsy:

Case JWB: Was killed April 26, 1865, by a conoidal pistol ball, fired at the distance of a few yards, from a cavalry revolver. The missile perforated the base of the right lamina of the 4th lumbar vertebra, fracturing it longitudinally and separating it by a fissure from the spinous process, at the same time fracturing the 5th vertebra through its pedicle, and involving that transverse process. The projectile then transversed the spinal canal almost horizontally but with a slight inclination downward and backward, perforating the cord which was found much torn and discolored with blood (see Specimen 4087 Sect. I AMM). The ball then shattered the bases of the left 4th and 5th laminae, driving bony fragments among the muscles, and made its exit at the left side of the neck, nearly opposite the point of entrance. It avoided the 2nd and 3rd cervical nerves. These facts were determined at autopsy which was made on April 28. Immediately after the reception of the injury, there was very general paralysis. The phrenic nerves performed their function, but the respiration was diaphragmatic, of course, labored and slow. Deglutition was impracticable, and one or two attempts at articulation were unintelligible. Death, from asphyxia, took place about two hours after the reception of the injury.

Booth's third, fourth, and fifth cervical vertebrae, which were removed during his autopsy, are currently displayed at the National Museum of Health and Medicine at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. An additional fragment from Booth's autopsy (tissue possibly cleaned off the cervical vertebrae) is in a bottle in the Mutter Medical Museum of the College of Physicians of Philadelphia.

At Secretary of War Edwin Stanton's order Booth's body was buried in the Old Penitentiary on the Washington Arsenal grounds in what is now Ft. Lesley J. McNair. It was taken there by boat and carried to a cell in the prison. A grave was dug, and the body (wrapped in an army blanket) was lowered into the hole and covered by a stone slab. In 1867 the body was exhumed and reburied in a pine box in a locked storeroom in Warehouse I at the prison. The corpse was again positively identified in 1869 when Booth's remains were exhumed and released by the government to the Booth family. At that time an inquest was held at Harvey and Marr's Parlor in Washington. It was noted that due to the nature of Booth's wound and autopsy and a generalized decaying of the remains, the skull had become detached from the body. Booth's corpse was then taken to Baltimore for burial and was positively identified by many people including John T. Ford, Henry Clay Ford, and several members of the Booth family. The body was buried in the Booth family plot in Green Mount Cemetery in Baltimore on Saturday, June 26, 1869. John's individual grave is unmarked at the request of the Booth family. On p. 376 (note 27) of Stanley Kimmel's The Mad Booths of Maryland, it is states that ,"Henry W. Mears, a young man at the time of Wilkes' burial, who became a Baltimore undertaker and occupied the building formerly used by Weaver, later recalled: "I saw the body of John Wilkes Booth lowered into the grave, and for many years had charge of the lot. While Edwin Booth was alive he evidenced a desire to beautify it, and sent for me to arrange the details. Each grave was discussed, but when that of John Wilkes Booth attracted his attention he turned to me and said, "Let it remain as it is -- unmarked."

In October, 1994, a petition was filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City to exhume John Wilkes Booth’s remains from Green Mount Cemetery. The petitioners were people who identified themselves as Booth’s relatives. The cemetery argued that its solemn duty was to protect the sanctity of those interred unless there was overwhelming evidence that the body buried there was not Booth’s. Judge Joseph H.H. Kaplan ruled that the evidence for exhumation was insufficient. His 1996 decision was upheld by the Court of Special Appeals in Annapolis.

|LINK|

[Who is John Galt?]

Congratulations! Your alma mater seems to have made short work of the 'Fighting Frenchmen'...

;>)

[Gianni]

The southern states were in rebellion

Against whom would a sovereign rebel? It's madness, madness I tell you.

[Held_to_Ransom]

You have to understand, it was an Illinois regiment. Illinois was a major destination for southerners in the decades before the Civil War. No doubt this regiment was full of them.

In any case, you have documented one of the worst Union atrocities of the war. Vandalizid property and the taking of some horses. Now, consider that in light of what Konfederat troopers did in the South during and after the war:

Sources for the following text:

KLAN ATTACKS RE: LEGAL AND LABOR ISSUES: House KKK testimony: Volume III: ppgs. 402-405, 585-590;Volume VI; pg. 8, ppgs 560-567:Volume VII; pg 653:Volume XI; pg. 277.

KLAN ATTACKS RE: LAND ISSUES: House KKK testimony: VolumeVI; pg 387:Volume XI, pg 337.

"AS SOON AS THEIR CROPS ARE MADE" House KKK testimony, Volume VII, 701. For further incidents of Klan raids on sharecroppers, see House KKK testimony Volume VI, pg 9, ppgs 12-13, pg 420, ppgs 545-546:Volume VII; pg 727:also deposition of Walter Scott, Report of Evidence Taken Before the Military Committee in Relation to Outrages Committed by the Ku Klux Klan in Middle and West Tennessee (Nashville; S. C. Mercer, 1868; pamphlet in Library of Congress), p 36; deposition of Pink Harris, 27 July 1868; File 444; 'Tennessee Field Office, Affidavits Relating to Outrages, 1866-1868," RG 105:Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, NARS. See also Stagg, "Problem of Klan Violence," pp 303-318; Sterling, The Trouble They Seen. pp 51-52

KLAN RAPES: Deposition of John Hamilton re: Reaner Berry, File 21246, RG 94: AGO, NARS: Charles Morgan to the Adjutant General-Department of the East, 4 May, 1871. File 1612, House KKK Testimony, Volume VI, pg 377, pg 387. See also Massacre of 1871, "Crisis 81 (February 1974); pg 52.

"OTHER GOOD INDUSTRIOUS FREEDMEN.." O.O. Howard to Secretary of War, File 1688, RG 94, AGO, NARS.

KLAN ATTACKS ON PROSPEROUS BLACKS: House KKK Testimony, Volume V, ppgs 1591-1593;Volume VI, ppgs 1 - 3; Volume VII ppgs 618-619; see also Volume VII, pg 732.

HENRY LOWTHER OUTRAGE: House KKK Testimony Volume VI, ppgs 357-363

LOWTHER'S FEAR OF BEING IN JAIL" Frequently, when a black was imprisoned, Klansmen 'would just go there and demand the keys from the jailer, and take him out and kill him" (House KKK testimony, Volume VII, pg 609); see also Wilson, "Meridian Massacre," pp. 49-55

LOWTHER'S CASTRATION" for further incidents of Klan castrations, see House KKK testimony, Volume IV, p 1184.

The text and sourcing are from "The Fiery Cross by Wyn Craig Wade. Simon and Schuster. I have read the extensive Congressional debates form 1871 on KKK Outrages, and where a host of these incidents and events are cited, and I can completely assure that only a verifiable Democrat or other fool would doubt this material.

For you Constitutional scholars, please note that the KKK hearings of 1871 resulted in the first Federal enforcement of the 14th amendment when Habeus Corpus was suspended in York County, South Carolina and the 7th Cavalry was sent in to arrest a nearly 1000 racists in York county alone who had been previously charged with similar criminal acts before multiple witnesses and who had been let off of criminal charges in the state courts by white southern juries in the South Carolina Court System

The resulting Federal prosecutions were grossly underfunded, and as a result, the great majority of those arrested were ultimately released due to the inadequacy of the Federal System and the unwillingness of a Democratic controlled Congress to fund adequate monies for legitimate prosecutions of these individuals.

Text follows:

Aside from Republican politics and leadership, other blacks were 'kluxed' for legal and labor squabbles. Aleck Stewart of Monroe County, Mississippi, was whipped by Klansmen for having the gall to sue his white employer for back wages. Jake Dannons, a successful blacksmith in Walton County, Georgia, was shot dead by Klansmen after refusing to do any more work for a white man who never paid him. Daniel Lane of Georgia was raided and whipped with hickory sticks by Klansmen after hiring a black woman to hoe his land, who had earlier refused to work for a white farmer. In South Carolina, Harriet Hernandes and her child were whipped when she refused to break her labor contract with one white man to work for another. Colombus Jeter was raided after declining to buy a horse from a Klansmen who wanted 20 percent interest. Samuel Simmons carried out his landlady's request and traded her horse to a white man for a mule, later wanting his mule back, the disgruntled trader had Simmons 'kluxed' after he refused to renege on the deal.

Issue relating to land grants and use caused countless incidents of Klan violence upon blacks. William Coleman, an industrious black who purchased eighty acres of choice land in Winston County, Mississippi, was brutally whipped by a Klan den and left to die. Caroline Benson, her daughter, and her son-in-law were all whipped for buying a small tract of land from a widow who had previously refused to sell it to a white. The practice of sharecropping caused endless altercations between blacks and whites. All through the South, white landowners soon learned that sharecropping contracts could be drawn up, blacks could work the land, and Klan raids could be used to drive the blacks from the land as soon as their portion of the crops came due. Major cities became refugee centers for blacks run off by the Klan at harvest time. A black spokesman for the people exiled in Atlanta said, "As soon as their crops are made they are driven off and not allowed to gather them. They are here suffering through the winter because they are not allowed to remain in the country."

The exaggerated charges of black rape during the Reconstruction have been discussed earlier, but the incidents of rape committed on black women by Klansmen have received less coverage. It appears, however, that the desire for a group intercourse was sometimes sufficient reason for a den to go out on a raid. In Broomtown, Alabama, the family of Mrs. Reaner Berry was visited by a den of Klansmen who broke down her door before she could open it. Inside the cabin were Mrs. Berry's son George, his wife, and a neighbor girl who was staying with them. The Klansmen informed the women that they 'wanted to bed with them.' When they refused, the Klansmen gave George thirty lashes and raped Mrs. Berry and the neighbor girl; George's wife escaped rape only through her plea that she fad recently miscarried and was still bleeding. Near Raleigh, North Carolina, the nineteen-year-old daughter of Mrs. Gilmore was repeatedly raped and beaten by Klansmen who later set fire to her pubic hair, leaving it 'singed to the flesh." Sometimes during a political raid, Klansmen would rape the female members of the household as a matter of course. It was inevitable for the excitement of 'kluxing' helpless victims to carry over into sexual forms of expression. Caroline Benson reported that the Klansmen who stripped her and her daughter prior to beating them 'laughed and made great sport. Some of them just squealed the same as if they were stable horses just brought out."

While Klansmen sometimes violated black women simply for being women, they occasionally assaulted black men simply for being prosperous. Although the economic independence of the ex-slave was one of the primary goals of the Freedmen's Bureau, it was anathema to the white South. When O. O. Howard learned that the Klan was crushing one of the bureaus major hopes, he was beside himself. Writing to the Secretary of War, he claimed that prosperous blacks were being driven from their farms and businesses by the Klan: "Other good industrious freedmen are about to leave; [they] say that the old slaveholders cannot bear that they 'should be getting up and doing well.' Their intelligence and prosperity exile them." Seventy-seven-year-old Andrew Cathcart of South Carolina had the skill and prudence to save enough money to buy a ninety-eight-acre plantation; he was whipped by a den of Klansmen who stole his money and valuables and then burned down the schoolhouse he had built on his property for his daughter. Alfred Richardson was a successful businessmen who owned three separate tracts of land and co-owned a grocery store with his brother. Nervous whites warned him, "They say you are making too much money [and] they do not allow any nigger to rise that way." During a Klan raid, Richardson took nearly twenty shots into his hip and legs before escaping. Anderson Ferrel of Georgia was another independent black, and a den of Klansmen whipped him, as they said, "to teach you the difference between a white man and a nigger."

Unfortunately the fate suffered by Henry Lowther at the hands of Klansmen was not unique. Lowther was a forty-one-year-old freedman from Wilkinson County, Georgia. In addition to being an active Republican, he was a prosperous shopkeeper as well. "I worked for my money, and carried on a shop," Lowther said. Some of the white citizens "got broke and did not pay me, and I sued them. They have been working at me ever since I've been free. I had too much money."

The first time the Klan visited him, Lowther managed to escape through the back door and hide in the brush. Before leaving, the frustrated Klansmen told Mrs. Lowther that her husband had five days to leave town. The next day, taking them at their word, Lowther gathered up his money in preparation for leaving, but his friend Bose Lavender talked him out of it. Lavender suggested getting up a company of men and standing guard at Lowther's house to repel the Ku-Klux when they returned. By a curious coincidence, on the same day, a white woman who lived near Lowther and whose land he occasionally tended propositioned him to have sex with her. Unfortunately, Lowther complied. The woman was considered a 'low-down tramp' in town and was known to sleep regularly with black as well as white men. But the fact that she had propositioned Lowther the day after the Klan's visit suggests that the Klan may have put her up to it, possibly even paying her for the setup.

In any case, Bose Lavender's band of men guarded Lowther's house for the next three nights. A few days later, Lowther was arrested for "maintaining an armed camp" and put into jail. Lowther was terrified of being in jail. Matt Deason, the Republican sheriff, had just been murdered; and the bailiff and deputies now in charge of the jail were know to be active members of the local Klan den. Lowther's fears were quickly justified. At two o'clock in the morning, a disguised Klansman entered the jail and took Lowther out into the street. Looking around, he saw to his horror that the streets were filled with shrouded Ku-Klux--perhaps over one hundred of them.

They took him off to a swamp, some two miles from town. Within a hundred yards of the swamp, one of the Klansmen brought out a rope, and thinking he was going to be hanged, Lowther fell to his knees and begged for his life. There was some conversation among the Klansmen, and they marched him further on. Well into the swamp, the party again halted and there was more conversation. Suddenly, every Klansman cocked his gun and pointed it at Lowther. Lowther was certain he was going to be shot to death and, as he recalled, "I didn't care much then."

To his surprise, the Klan leader came up to him and asked whether he preferred to be murdered or "altered." After choosing the latter, Henry Lowther was pushed to the ground and castrated.

"Now," said a Klansman after the crude surgery had been performed, "as soon as you can get to a doctor, go to one. You know the doctors in this county. And as soon as you are able to leave, do it-- or we'll kill you next time." Lowther asked how long it would take for him to get well and was told five to six weeks. The Klansmen then rode off.

Nearly naked and profusely bleeding, Lowther walked two and a quarter miles before coming to the first house. It was the jailer's house, and lights were on. Lowther called our for help, but the jailer refused. "You must!" Lowther cried. "I am naked and nearly froze to death!" It was obvious he would get no help from the jailer so he walked into town and stopped at the first store that had a light. It was filled with men. Lowther begged them for help, but they too refused to come out. He continued walking, clutching the sides of buildings, until he came to the local doctor's house. He cried out for the doctor, but the doctor wasn't home.

At this point, Lowther fell to the ground unconscious. He woke up several house later and barely managed to get to a black woman's house who ran to Lowther's son who, finally, got his father a doctor. The next day, the black community reported that Henry Lowther's blood was spread all over the downtown area. The white community agreed that Lowther's punishment had been severe, but what did he expect after ravishing a white woman? After five weeks of recuperation, Lowther abandoned his home and business and moved to Atlanta.

[capitan_refugio]

You mean that little parochial school in Indiana? Look at the box score and see how many times SC had to punt. I'll save you the time. The answer is none.

Hey! We're waaaay off thread.

[capitan_refugio]

It is generally agreed among those who study these sorts of things, that there are several "prerequisites of nationhood." The CSA met several of these prerequisites, but failed to meet others. That's why some scholars refer to the CSA as a "quasi-state."

Certainly, one could say that the South had a "unique sense of identity" and a "common language." It is arguable whether the south developed a "functioning government." The CSA was never able to "establish and defend geo-political borders," nor were they able to achieve "international recognition."

In the United States, "sovereignty" rests with the people, rather than the government, or a particular ruler. The implication of your response indicates that you view the "southern states" were "sovereign," which is contrary to American tradition, even in the 1860's.

[capitan_refugio]

Stand, how are you these days?

"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."

Not a bad idea, except maybe for the election part - too much politics in an already politicized judiciary. I think a set term of no greater than 10 years makes a lot of sense.

Let me respond to another comment you had just a couple of posts back, when you advocated a "dixie republic." As you well know the government of the CSA in 1860-1865 was a disaster. It was an ineffective "national" government, kept poor relations with the governments of several of the individual states, was full of sectionalism, factionalism, petty infighting, and long-held jealousies. Why do you think it would be different today?

When the parts of the CSA west of the Mississippi were cut off from the rest of the south in 1863, Kirby Smith became the virtual military dictator of Texas. Jefferson Davis today would be called a "micro-manager." Maybe the best leader the South had, at least toward the end, was John Breckinridge.

Ask yourself, today, in 2003, what advantages does the South (and by that, I mean the deep South, which excludes Texas, the border states of Missouri, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Maryland - but if you wish, refer to the traditional CSA) hold over other regions of the USA? I have my own ideas about that, and how those strengths could work well with the mores and attitudes of the southwest, midwest, and pacific states (outside of San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Seattle), but I'd like to hear your ideas.

(I've been "recovering" from the Recall election here in CA, so I'm just now catching up on the older threads.)

[Non-Sequitur]

Against whom would a sovereign rebel? It's madness, madness I tell you.

Rebellion is generally defined as 'open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government.' That is an accurate description of the actions of the southern states.

[Gianni]

In the United States, "sovereignty" rests with the people, rather than the government, or a particular ruler.

I don't know about this. It appears more likely that 'sovereignty' rested (at one time) with the people as organized into their respective states. The argument that the people as a national body established and ratified the constitution has been hashed over a great deal lately; it appears most of the evidence supports the notion that the people as organized into their states were the sovereigns. Were that not the case, then ratification itself would have been meaningless, as those who granted power to the fedgov had no authority to do so.

The implication of your response indicates that you view the "southern states" were "sovereign," which is contrary to American tradition, even in the 1860's.

It is an interesting thing to ponder, to be sure. A nation in which the people are truly the sovereigns would have no power at any level of government. Of course in our nation the people cede power through vehicles like the constitution. This is why any power available to the government must be explicitly stated therein. This is really the cornerstone of my arguments with Non-Sequitur, as the people of any state would never cede the power of coercive union.

[4CJ]

Your ancestor traitor was a draft dodger...........LOL......

Enlisting on three distinct occasions, even after being wounded, is not dodging a draft. Ask the folks in the white coats to up your meds, it might help alleviate the hallucinations.

[HenryLeeII]

What you are saying is that a baseless, indefensible Supreme Court decision is a valid way of settling debates regarding the Constitution, as long as the U.S. Army is used to crush the opposition? Wow! I thought this was America, not some third-world banana republic!

[HenryLeeII]

Gianni:

Non-Sequitur is the one arguing that the Constitution doesn't matter, as long as the U.S. Army defeats the other side's army. I'm arguing that the Supreme Court's decision is not based on federal law or a reasonable reading of the Constitution, therefore, the Texas v. White decision is not a valid way for Freepers to argue that secession is illegal.

[Non-Sequitur]

What you are saying is that a baseless, indefensible Supreme Court decision is a valid way of settling debates regarding the Constitution, as long as the U.S. Army is used to crush the opposition?

No, what I'm saying is that when the southern states initiated the rebellion in 1861, and when they started the hostilities by firing on Sumter, they were acting outside the boundaries of the Constitution. And that Supreme Court decisions are not baseless or indefensible just because you say that they are.

[4CJ]

Do you have a banana? ;o)

[Non-Sequitur]

Non-Sequitur is the one arguing that the Constitution doesn't matter, as long as the U.S. Army defeats the other side's army.

I'm arguing that the Constitution does matter. You're the one arguing that the Constitution matters only if you agree with it.

[Gianni]

Non-Sequitur is the one arguing that the Constitution doesn't matter, as long as the U.S. Army defeats the other side's army.

Alas, claiming the intellectual high ground does little good to a dead man (or a dead dream). So long as our politicians are chosen from the human race, self-govermnet will remain a contradiction in terms.

[stand watie]

may i point out to you that TX & many other states elect all their judges? it seems to work fine for the states;what works for the states could work equally well for the nation.

also i like to think that a new dixie republic would be better than either the CSA or the USA government we have now. face it, the 19th & 21st centuries aren't the same in any measure AND let's hope we've learned a little bit in 150 years.

free dixie,sw

[4CJ]

If the state of Texas had NOT seceded, as was the opinion of Justice Chase, then the state's act regarding the bonds was valid, and the bonds were redeemable. Chase argued that the state did not secede, but even so the legislatures act was not valid (abolishing the requirement of the governor's signature). Chase states, 'And yet it is an historical fact that the government of Texas, then in full control of the State, was its only actual government ... the new government ... would have constituted, in the strictest sense of the words, a de facto government, and its acts during the period of its existence as such would be effectual, and, in almost all respects, valid. And to some extent this is true of the actual government of Texas, though unlawful and revolutionary as to the United States.'

Justice Clifford wrote in 1878 [Ford v. Surget, 97 US 594], 'any government, however violent and wrongful in its origin, must be considered a de facto government if it was in the full and actual exercise of sovereignty over a territory and people large enough for a nation.' A fact pointed out in Justice Newman's opinion in Kadic v. Karadzic, who also noted that '[t]he definition of a state is well established in international law: Under international law, a state is an entity that has a defined territory and a permanent population, under the control of its own government, and that engages in, or has the capacity to engage in, formal relations with other such entities.'

In other words, by this reasoning, the Supreme Court held that the state governments were legitimate, and that the acts of the state were valid.

Additionally, Justice Chase, in Thorington v. Smith, 75 Wall. 1 (1868), stated

We have already seen that the people of the insurgent States, under the Confederate government were, in legal contemplation, substantially in the same condition as inhabitants of districts of a country occupied and controlled by an invading belligerent. The rules which would apply in the former case would apply in the latter; and, as in the former case, the people must be regarded as subjects of a foreign power, and contracts among them be interpreted and enforced with reference to the conditions imposed by the conqueror, so in the latter case, the inhabitants must be regarded as under the authority of the insurgent belligerent power actually established as the government of the country, and contracts made with them must be interpreted and enforced with reference to the condition of things created by the acts of the govering power.

We are clearly of opinion that such evidence must be received in respect to such contracts, in order that justice may be done between the parties, and that the party entitled to be paid in these Confederate dollars can recover their actual value at the time and place of the contract, in lawful money of the United States.

In other words, besides recognizing the Confederacy as a foreign government, the Supreme Court ruled that the contract between parties was to be honored. The lower court sustaining 'the view of the purchasers that the contract was illegal', was overturned by the Supreme Court.

[Gianni]

In a survey conducted in 1951 of the U.S. armed services, banana cream pie was the favorite dessert.

Mmmmmmmmmmmm... Banana cream pie.

[LibertyAndJusticeForAll]

(just noticed this posting is weeks old)

The most racist branch of my family were early (1852) Oregon pioneers.
The southern branches are my most tolerant, gracious, kind and loving.
Only God knows what my New England branches really believed about slavery (I just can't seem to warm-up enough towards them to care).

Slavery was the greatest evil committed by Americans, and I thank God it is gone. But, I think soldiers should be buried under the flag they died fighting for; anything else is historically inaccurate and dishonest.