It's Official - The South Won the Civil War!

Give me a break! The Republicans only issue when they started was to end slavery. And at the time, there was still slavery, so it's not talking about former slaves, but those who were slaves at the time.

Thank God, today all in this country are FREE!!!

That was in 1860...The slogan I'm referring to is for Fremont, the first Republican presidential candidate. He lost. His slogan was "Free soil, free labor, free speech, free men, Fremont."

Policy changes, however the ideal of individual freedom has never changed with the Republican Party.

What was the "Colorado militia" in action at Apache Canyon? The 1st Colorado Volunteers!

Nice try, capitan, but an erronious reference to them as a militia does not change the fact that they were a federal unit any more than your attempt to alter the name of that unit did.

The slogan I'm referring to is for Fremont, the first Republican presidential candidate. He lost.

That's the point. The party changed when the figured out they couldn't win on an anti-slavery ticket. So instead the rewrote the platform, took out the heavy stuff on slavery and replaced them with pledges of welfare handouts, government spending, federalized banking, and higher taxes.

[capitan_kerryfugio #220] If you were to go back and actually read my comments, rather than the misrepresentations by nolu coward and others, you will see I made a three-sentence post about it, which I retracted the next day because it was simply a mistake. Posters who are themselves dishonest, point that out as an attempt to deceive. As the post was so clearly and easily proved wrong, and was retracted within a day, that doesn't make much sense, does it? But if you want to be part of the "liar choir," that's your choice.

When speaking about Lemmon v. The People, at cr #386 you regaled us with this mush: "Lemmon v the People was a case which foreshadowed Dred Scott. The Taney Court overturned a New York State statute which immediately freed slaves brought into the state. The decision guaranteed 'sojourn and transit' rights to slave-owners through free states. It did not address, to my knowledge, the issue of residence."

The Lemmon case never went to the Supreme Court. Fehrenbacher makes that point clear at page 445. Regarding Lemmon, the Supreme Court did not overturn anything. The actual decision, which ended in the highest court of New York, held that the slaves were free and they remained free. They were in New York when the matter was brought to court in New York, and New York law was applied. Every point you made was false.

[capitan_refugio #526 09/01/2004] "I remembered Lemmon was a sojourn and transit case regarding New York. And I recall there was SC case that foreshadowed . When I have time, I'll figure out which one that was."

No capitan_kerryfugio, you "remembered" that the Taney Court overturned a New York State statute and guaranteed "'sojourn and transit' rights to slave-owners through free states." That is the exact opposite of reality in the case of Lemmon v. The People where the law of physical jurisdiction (New York) was applied and the slaves in question were set free. You excuse your make-believe case with the invocation of a non-specific make-believe case.

[capitan_refugio #151 to GOPcap 11/05/2004] I did not "make up" any Supreme Court decisions. I mistook a New York case for a USSC case and posted a retraction the next day. That is what honest posters do. Dishonest posters, like yourself, only tell the half-truth.

No, capitan_kerryfugio, you did not post a retraction, you substituted a different lie. That is what dishonest posters do. As a substitute for the non-existent SCOTUS case of Lemmon v. The People, you substituted a different non-specific yet still non-existent SCOTUS case. As was to be expected, you have yet to "figure out which one that was." I previously provided you with a link to a complete list of all SCOTUS case citations from 1790 to 1862 and challenged you to cite the case. As was to be expected, you simply moved to another thread.

Citations of ALL SCOTUS cases 1790-1862

There is the link again. Cite the case.

[capitan_kerryfugio #220] Amy Warwick was one of the Prize Cases. As I recall, I was making points in that part of the thread about what the case was about, in a discussion of the Congresses power to retrospecively approve actions by the President, and how the cases were cast. If I said they were "rulings" by the Court, that was mistaken. However, the point remains that the Congress had the power to approve of Lincoln's assumption of emergency war powers and to similarly approve his susepnsion of the habeas writ. If you can point to the specific post you have problem with, I will review it.

In cr #649 you purported to quote from the Opinion of the Supreme Court in The Prize Cases. You continued, in your words, "The Supreme Court finds: (1) The rebellion is an insurrection and not a war betwenn countries, (2) The "so-called blockade" was not a blockade under international law, and (3) Closing the ports was a valid exercise of executive authority."

In this case you purported to quote from the Opinion of the Court in the case of the Amy Warwick, and you quoted from the recap of the argument of one of the lawyers in the case of The Brilliante, Mr. Carlisle. ALL of your purported "findings" of the court were the reverse of the actual findings of the court.

Thank you for chiming in> I refer you to the text of Amy Warwick (1862): "But chiefly, the terms of the President's proclamation instituting [67 U.S. 635, 641]...."
The Supreme Court finds:
(1) The rebellion is an insurrection and not a war betwenn countries,
(2) The "so-called blockade" was not a blockade under international law, and
(3) Closing the ports was a valid exercise of executive authority.

-- capitan_refugio, #649, 09/03/2004

[nc] cr quotes are from pp. 640-642 of the Supreme Court Reporter.

The entirety of the quoted matter was from the Court Reporter's recitation of the Argument of Mr. Carlisle which runs from page 639 to 650. The Opinion of the Court by Mr. Justice Grier starts at page 665.

All of the findings attributed to the Court are arguments of Mr. Carlisle. None was adopted by the Court.

On FINDLAW, bracketed comments in text of case [67 U.S. 635, 650] indicate this report starts at Volume 67, page 635 and you are at the beginning of page 650.

| 635 | 639 | 640 | 641 | 650 | 665 | 682 | 699 |

[court reporter at p. 639] "One argument on each side is all that can be given. Those of Mr. Dana and Mr. Carlisle have been selected...."
[court reporter at p. 639] Begins presentation of argument by Mr. Carlisle.
[court reporter at p. 650] Ends presentation of argument by Mr. Carlisle.
[court reporter at p. 650] Begins presentation of argument by Mr. Dana.
[Opinion of the Court - Mr. Grier] pp. 665 - 682.
[Dissenting Opinion of Mr. Nelson] pp. 682 - 699.

[GOPcap #224] Oh, they happened to be sure. He also quoted the dissent in Ex Parte Bollman and tried to pass it off as the ruling. A few weeks later he did the same thing in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.

Also regarding Bollman, capitan_refugio #237 8/29/2004 to GOPcap argued that "Bollman was not about habeas corpus...." Habeas Corpus, by Eric M. Freedman, NYU Press, 2001, devotes three entire chapters to Bollman.

In discussing the case of Mitchell vs. Harmony, capitan_kerryfugio provided a quote which he attributed to a footnote in Hamdi. He finally admitted he had never read the decision in Mitchell and I proved beyond a doubt that his "quote" came from a Petitition for a Writ of Cert written by a public defender. capitan_kerryfugio then claimed that he merely mistook the Petition for the Decision of the Court in Hamdi. The alleged "footnote" is the full page wide, double-spaced, and ends page 24 and continues on to the TOP of page 25. It bears no resemblance to any "footnote" ever seen. The petition by the public defender bears no resemblance to any decision of the Supreme Court.

[cr #1279 -- 09/16/2004 11:39:32 PM CDT]
From the Hamdi v Rumsfeld decision, comes this short review of Mitchell.

[cr #1370 -- 09/18/2004 12:20:00 AM CDT]
I have not read Mitchell but the description in the Hamdi footnote is that the plaintiff was a U.S. citizen.

[nc #1402 -- 09/18/2004 6:26:43 AM CDT]
I proved with images and links that the quote was not from the Hamdi decision as alleged on 9/16/2004 and I proved it was not from a footnote as alleged on 9/18/2004. I proved it was from the main text of a Petition for a Writ of Cert.

[capitan_refugio #1462 09/19/2004 12:17:17 AM CDT]
Yes, my statement that it was from the Hamdi "decision" was in error. It was from the Hamdi "documentation" on Findlaw.com and I mistook it for the decision or the dissent. Big deal.

No capitan. The images shown in my #1402 prove beyond a doubt that the Petition for a Writ of Cert cannot be mistaken for either the decision or the dissent. It looks nothing like a decision of the Supreme Court. It bears no resemblance to a court decision. It looks nothing like any court decision on FINDLAW. Court decisions on FINDLAW are single-spaced in HTML. This Petition was double-spaced in PDF.

It is text in a Petition for a Writ of Cert by a Public Defender spanning the width of the page, ending page 24 and continuing on page 25. It bears no resemblance to any footnote ever seen in a court decision or elsewhere.;

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERT BY PUBLIC DEFENDER

HAMDI DECISION BY U.S. SUPREME COURT

The slogan I'm referring to is for Fremont, the first Republican presidential candidate. He lost.

-----------
That's the point. The party changed when the figured out they couldn't win on an anti-slavery ticket. So instead the rewrote the platform, took out the heavy stuff on slavery and replaced them with pledges of welfare handouts, government spending, federalized banking, and higher taxes.

That doesn't change the fact that their drive was to end slavery.

capitan_kerryfugio #268:

CR - "The Supreme Court finds:
(1) The rebellion is an insurrection and not a war between countries,
(2) The "so-called blockade" was not a blockade under international law, and
(3) Closing the ports was a valid exercise of executive authority."
Correct conclusions, all three of them! - wrong citation.

CAPITAN_KERRYFUGIO: "The rebellion is an insurrection and not a war between countries,"

REALITY CHECK QUOTED FROM THE OPINION OF THE COURT IN THE PRIZE CASES:

"Let us enquire whether, at the time this blockade was instituted, a state of war existed which would justify a resort to these means of subduing the hostile force. War has been well defined to be, 'That state in which a nation prosecutes its right by force.' The parties belligerent in a public war are independent nations. But it is not necessary to constitute war, that both parties should be acknowledged as independent nations or sovereign States. A war may exist where one of the belligerents, claims sovereign rights as against the other. Insurrection against a government may or may not culminate in an organized rebellion, but a civil war always begins by insurrection against the lawful authority of the Government. A civil war is never solemnly declared; it becomes such by its accidents-the number, power, and organization of the persons who originate and carry it on. When the party in rebellion occupy and hold in a hostile manner a certain portion of territory; have declared their independence; have cast off their allegiance; have organized armies; have commenced hostilities against their former sovereign, the world acknowledges them as belligerents, and the contest a war."

CAPITAN_KERRYFUGIO: "The 'so-called blockade' was not a blockade under international law"

REALITY CHECK QUOTED FROM THE OPINION OF THE COURT IN THE PRIZE CASES:

"That a blockade de facto actually existed, and was formally declared and notified by the President on the 27th and 30th of April, 1861, is an admitted fact in these cases."

"On this first question therefore we are of the opinion that the President had a right, jure belli, to institute a blockade of ports in possession of the States in rebellion, which neutrals are bound to regard."

CAPITAN_KERRYFUGIO: "Closing the ports was a valid exercise of executive authority."

REALITY CHECK:

From Gideon Welles, Lincoln and Johnson, First Paper, Galaxy Magazine, April 1872, p. 523

Mr. Seward, who had been uneasy since his return, [nc: Seward had been thrown from his carriage and injured] read to the Secretary of the Treasury and myself the draft of a proclamation he had prepared for the President to sign, closing the ports of the Southern States. This was a step which I had earnestly pressed at the beginning of the rebellion, as a domestic measure, and more legitimate than a blockade, which was international, and an admission that we were two nations.
* * *
The President reached Washington on the evening of Sunday, the 9th of April. When I called on him the next morning he was in excellent spirits, the news of Lee’s surrender, which however was not unanticipated, having been received. While I was with him he signed the proclamation for closing the ports and expressed his gratification that Mr. Seward and myself concurred in the measure, alluding to our former differences.

Just before the war ended, Lincoln issued an order closing the ports, rather than blockading them.

OFFICIAL RECORDS: Series 3, vol 5, Part 1, Page 107

(Union Letters, Orders, Reports)

VII. April 11, 1865.-Closing certain ports.

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A PROCLAMATION.

Whereas, by my proclamations of the nineteenth and twenty-seventh days of April, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one the ports of the United States in the State of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas were declared to be subject to blockade; but whereas, the said blockade has, in consequence of actual military occupation by this Government, since been conditionally set aside or relaxed in respect to the ports of Norfolk and Alexandria, in the State of Virginia; Beaufort, in the State of North Carolina; Port Royal, in the State of South Carolina; Pensacola and Fernandina, in the State of Florida, and New Orleans, in the State of Louisiana;

And whereas, by the fourth section of the act of Congress approved on the thirteenth of July, eighteen hundred and sixty- one; entitled "An act further to provide for the collection of duties on imports, and for other purposes," the President, for the reasons therein set forth, is authorized to close certain ports of entry:

Now, therefore, be it known that I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, do hereby proclaim that the ports of Richmond, Tappahannock, Cherrystone, Yorktown, and Petersburg, in Virginia; of Camden (Elizabeth City), Edenton, Plymouth, Washington, New Berne, Ocracoke, and Wilmington, in North Carolina; of Charleston, Georgetown, and Beaufort, in South Carolina; of Savannah, Saint Mary's, and Brunswick (Darien), in Georgia; of Mobile, in Alabama; of Pearl River (Shieldsborough), Natchez, and Vicksburg, in Mississippi; of Saint Augustine, Key West, Saint Mark's (Port Leon), Saint John's (Jacksonville), and Apalachicola, in Florida; of Teche (Franklin), in Louisiana; of Galveston, La Salle, Brazos de Santiago (Point Isabel), and Brownsville, in Texas, are hereby closed, and all right of importation, warehousing, and other privileges shall, in respect to the ports aforesaid, cease, until they shall have again been opened by order of the President; and if, whole said ports are so closed, any ship or vessel from beyond the United States, or having on board any articles subject to duties, furniture, and cargo, shall be forfeited to the United States.

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the city of Washington this eleventh day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-five, and of the Independence of the United States of America the eighty- ninth.

[L. S.]

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

By the President:

WILLIAM H. SEWARD,

Secretary of State.

Of course, this has been brought to the attention of capitan_kerryfugio many times. He simply persists in the false representation of what the court actually said.

In cr #649 you purported to quote from the Opinion of the Supreme Court in The Prize Cases. You continued, in your words, "The Supreme Court finds: (1) The rebellion is an insurrection and not a war betwenn countries, (2) The "so-called blockade" was not a blockade under international law, and (3) Closing the ports was a valid exercise of executive authority."

In this case you quoted from the recap of the argument of one of the lawyers, Mr. Carlisle, and presented it as the opinion of the court. All of your purported "findings" of the court were the reverse of the actual findings of the court.

Thank you for chiming in> I refer you to the text of Amy Warwick (1862): "But chiefly, the terms of the President's proclamation instituting [67 U.S. 635, 641]...."
The Supreme Court finds:
(1) The rebellion is an insurrection and not a war betwenn countries,
(2) The "so-called blockade" was not a blockade under international law, and (3) Closing the ports was a valid exercise of executive authority.

-- capitan_refugio, #649, 09/03/2004

[nc] cr quotes are from pp. 640-642 of the Supreme Court Reporter.

The entirety of the quoted matter was from the Court Reporter's recitation of the Argument of Mr. Carlisle which runs from page 639 to 650. The Opinion of the Court by Mr. Justice Grier starts at page 665.

All of the findings attributed to the Court are arguments of Mr. Carlisle. None was adopted by the Court.

On FINDLAW, bracketed comments in text of case [67 U.S. 635, 650] indicate this report starts at Volume 67, page 635 and you are at the beginning of page 650.

| 635 | 639 | 640 | 641 | 650 | 665 | 682 | 699 |

[court reporter at p. 639] "One argument on each side is all that can be given. Those of Mr. Dana and Mr. Carlisle have been selected...."
[court reporter at p. 639] Begins presentation of argument by Mr. Carlisle.
[court reporter at p. 650] Ends presentation of argument by Mr. Carlisle.
[court reporter at p. 650] Begins presentation of argument by Mr. Dana.
[Opinion of the Court - Mr. Grier] pp. 665 - 682.
[Dissenting Opinion of Mr. Nelson] pp. 682 - 699.

hairball

another hairball

Three in a row. You could use some mineral oil to help regurgitate those hairballs!

What it does point out is that any number of authors differentiate professional soldiers (regulars) from non-professional volunteers (militia).

You seem to be stuck on your point. Maybe you should borrow a little mineral oil from your friend nolu coward. He's a better liar than you are, but when confronted, he runs away. You're too stupid.

Get a load of this boob! How long since you've seen anyone this stupid?

Yeah, I've seen someone that stupid and ignorant. This boob sounds exactly like him. #3Fan was banned 8/17/2004. This guy was created 8/29/2004.

Thanks for sharing your research. I think capitan_kerryfagio has been operating under his bigoted assumption that Southerners are stupid. The more you prove him wrong, the tighter he will cling to his ignorance. He seems to have a death-grip on it now.

"By 1984, I was prohibited from participating in partisan political campaigns, by the Hatch Act."
-- cr #1804 06/02/2004
"I worked in Reagan's campaigns in 1976, 1980, and 1984."
-- cr #412 10/24/2004

In cr #384 you purported three quotes to be about Scott v. Sandford which were about the case of Scott v. Emerson. Two of the quotes were from Chapter 10 "Versus Emerson." See nc #389.

capitan_kerryfugio #268: