Posted on 04/12/2002 7:49:37 AM PDT by Sir Gawain
We know the CSA actions were called rebellion in the Prize Cases.
Where was president Lincoln taken to task by the Court?
Don't even think Milligan. The court compares Lincoln and Washington in that particular case.
Walt
"The second confiscation act... of July, 1862, which preceded Lincoln's proclamation, went further than that edict... It declared all slaves of persons adhering to the 'rebellion' to be forever free. The law was not qualified by the hundred day warning or escape clause, or by the very considerable territorial exceptions of the President's decree. It was one of several anti-slavery acts of Congress that antedated the proclamation."
That's good information. Thanks.
I wonder if it was constitutional? :)
Seriously. Slavery was a state institution. I'm not sure that Congress COULD legislate that way, and that is why in 1864, President Lincoln vetoed the Wade-Davis Bill, which also had some questionable provisions.
Walt
"With Malice Toward None", by Stepen Oates, p. 392
Walt
Excuse me Monkey, but if you start taking unprovoked shots at the US flag, which they did even before Lincoln took office, you are in violation of the Constitution and deserve what ever fate you get. I would have hung the bastards.
And it is really funny you bring up Mexico. That was a war started by the Slavers themselves looking to grab more territory for slavery to make themselves even wealthier. And they weren't done with Mexico by a long shot. They wanted even more.
"I want Cuba . . . I want Tamaulipas, Potosi, and one or two other Mexican States; and I want them all for the same reason -- for the planting and spreading of slavery."
--- Albert Gallatin Brown, U.S. Senator from Mississippi
Show me a ruling that says it is reserved strictly for Congress. Courts have ruled before and after Lincoln that the Militia Act gives the executive significant powers in time of emergency. As to Congress be 'absent', I'd remind you that congress only met for a few months a year then. When the Rebel traders attempted to cut Washington off from the North by burning bridges and inciting mobs, Congress was not in session. When they were called back in July, they supported Lincoln’s actions, so you hog wash DiLorenzo-argument simply does not fly.
Excuse me, but what territory are you talking about? None of the Mexican cession was part of the confederate states. Not one square inch. Many million of acres of it were lands purchased by All Americans from the Spanish and French.
You've made my day.
It's a magnificent history, .............
until you get to the Clearances.
Per Art. 1, Section 8, any such action comes under the responsibility of the Congress to provide for the common defense and general welfare. Under the Constitution, the Congress is empowered to prevent any such action.
Walt
Now this I have to hear!! Please show me rulings specifically before abe made his little power grab that covered
A) the appropriation of $2,000,000 from the US Treasury without Congressional approval and
B) the appropriation of funds, materials, labor, etc. for building naval ships without the approval of Congress.
And please no quoting of the Militia Act. Not even you could be blind enough to assume the Militia Act covered that
Is there something about hiding out from the world in the cloistered environment of a university that shrinks the testes, or are those who hide in those retreats deficient in that department to start with?
In other words, you don't have any answer to his arguments, so you turn to abuse. It's certainly not the first time. But now that it's clear it's not an act or a joke, but the way you really are, it's not funny anymore.
It's pretty much what's to be expected from the John Wilkes Booth Fan Club and Preston Brooks Marching Society. Some people get drawn into this secessionist nonsense for good motives, but the end result is they keep trying to separate from whatever is different or challenging and trying to repress or crush whatever can't get away from them.
This nonsense about Lincoln the tyrant gets pretty laughable. Had the other side won, we would have seen far more oppressive and permanent tyrannies. Madison was right about the benefits of an extended republic in curbing faction and preserving freedom.
Walt
Perhaps not as such. But President Lincoln was working the whole time to get the new constitution of Louisiana into effect.
It's often wondered what would have happened to reconstruction had President Lincoln lived, but in point of fact he was already working on reconstruction long before the end of the war.
Winston Churchill called Lincoln: "the only protector of the prostrate South. Others might try to emulate his magnanimity; none but he could control the bitter political hatreds which were rife...The death of Lincoln deprived the Union of the guiding hand which alone could have solved the problems of reconstruction and added to the triumph of armies the lasting victories which are gained over the hearts of men."
--A History of the English Speaking People Volume Four, The Great Democracies" by Winston Churchill, P. 263
Walt
A) the appropriation of $2,000,000 from the US Treasury without Congressional approval and
B) the appropriation of funds, materials, labor, etc. for building naval ships without the approval of Congress.
I have asked you before to document these data in the contemporary record. To my knowledge you have not done so.
Can You?
Walt
Both men of high intelligence combined with low character, consumed by a hubris that impelled them to exploit every path to personal power. Both believing that what was good for their countries and what was good for their legacies was indistinguishable.
Supreme confirmation of the old adage "it takes one to know one".
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.