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

To: Texas Mulerider
Ah, yes. Quoting White v. Texas proves only that Salmon Chase was no more committed to his stated principles than was Congressman Lincoln in 1847.

Well, you were the one who chose him to support your position. So was he expressing his true beliefs in 1865? Or in 1869?

101 posted on 01/15/2007 12:43:34 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies ]


To: Non-Sequitur

I don't recall stating my position, just a quote that conflicted with yours. But since you ask, I expect that Chase's more studied position on secession occurred in 1865 amid Francis Lieber's investigation into the probability of a successful treason trial against Jefferson Davis (Lieber concluded the Feds would lose).

It seems that you agree with Mr. Chase's changed position, which is fine. I know you to be a strong conservative, so I really hope you don't resort to liberals' favorite insult, used whenever a conservative justice does something they approve of, and say that he "grew" in office. Mr. Chase had absolutely nothing to lose in 1869 by changing his stated position on secession via an obscure Reconstruction-era bond case.


103 posted on 01/15/2007 1:13:09 PM PST by Texas Mulerider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies ]

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