Posted on 12/11/2002 3:15:37 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
It is customary to post a barf alert before such.
It is customary to post a barf alert before such.
And also before the words of Jefferson Davis, Alexander Stephens, John C. Breckinridge and General Joe Johnston?
"Once the three stood agreed on the terms, Sherman and Johnston signed it and Sherman called for copies to be made for their two governments. He then he spoke to the two Confederates of Lincoln's assassination. Johnston confided to Sherman his horror at the deed, fearing it would be blamed on the Confederates, and that Lincoln might have been their greatest ally in reconstruction." Stepping outside to their now mingled escorts, they found the news generally known, as Sherman introduced the two of them to his staff, and Breckinridge and Reagan discussed it with some of their followers. The postmaster said he hoped no connection between the murdered and their cause would be found, or it should go hard for them, while Breckinridge said Lincoln's death at this time and in this manner must precipitate great calamity for them. "Gentlemen," he told them, “the South has lost its best friend."
-"An Honorable Defeat" pp.166-67 by William C. Davis
"He [Davis] read the telegram [bringing news of Lincoln's death] and when it brought an exultant shout raised his hand to check the demonstration..."He had power over the Northern people," Davis wrote in his memoir of the war," and was without malignity to the southern people."...Alone of the southern apologists, [Alexander] Stephens held Lincoln in high regard. "The Union with him in sentiment," said the Georgian, "rose to the sublimnity of religious mysticism...in 1873 "Little Elick" Stephens, who again represented his Georgia district in Congress, praised Lincoln for his wisdom, kindness and generosity in a well-publicized speech seconding the acceptance of the gift of Francis B. Carpenter's famous painting of Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation."
-- "Lincoln in American Memory" pp.46-48 by Merrill B. Peterson
Presidential historian Clinton Rossiter once said "It is neither sacrilegious nor irreverent to refer to Lincoln as the martyred Christ of democracy's Passion Play."
Winston Churchill called Lincoln "the last protector of the prostrate south."
But you know better than all these men?
Walt
Sure it does - nothing.
Just like it says nothing about secession, right?
Walt
Irrelevant. The evidence conclusively demonstrates that the reading of the constitution under its original intent by the men who framed it sought the suspension power to be the domain of the legislature. The Lincoln had no credible reason to act as he did.
No it's not irrelevant and as I indicated yesterday, the general understanding -- by both President Lincoln and the Supreme Court was that the rulings of the Supreme Court applied to particular cases.
Even your source says it:
Marbury [I think you mean John Marshall] termed it as the following: "The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the constitution."
Walt
Yup, and I'm doing so by providing overwhelming historical evidence that the act of that historical person was unconstitutional.
That was never shown at the time, as the issue never came before the Supreme Court, and your interpretation is eclipsed by that of the present Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
Eclipsed is a poor word. His opinion is like the sun to your 20 watt bulb.
Walt
It never came before the Supreme Court because The Lincoln refused to appeal it there even though it was his burden to do so. Try again.
Nope. The issue could have been brought before the Supreme Court by any number of means. Why it was not is probably a story in itself. But Taney could have kept hitting that hot button, but he never did.
Walt
Okay, then why did The Lincoln ignore the ruling in the particular case of Ex Parte Merryman by refusing to appeal it to the Supreme Court?
Yes it was. Taney quoted a large ammount of it in his widely circulated Ex Parte Merryman ruling.
as the issue never came before the Supreme Court
That was The Lincoln's obligation, and he failed to do so.
and your interpretation is eclipsed by that of the present Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
No, not really. He's asserted without evidence and on his own authority that the issue has never been decided. By comparison, the overwhelming bulk of historical records indicate that it was decided without issue from day one when the clause was inserted into the Constitution. Rehnquist can argue for his position all he wants as can you, but no ammount of argument will change the fact that Madison's records show it was indisputably intended for the legislature.
Not really. The Supreme Court uses pretty strict guidelines to decide which cases it accepts. Among them, a party has to have standing in the case and has to have reason to appeal the lower court's ruling. In Merryman, the parties with standing and reason to appeal were The Lincoln, his administration, and the military. None of them did so.
Not really. The Supreme Court uses pretty strict guidelines to decide which cases it accepts. Among them, a party has to have standing in the case and has to have reason to appeal the lower court's ruling. In Merryman, the parties with standing and reason to appeal were The Lincoln, his administration, and the military. None of them did so.
What about Merryman himself? Was he willing to blow up bridges but not go before the Court?
Of course, as Mr. Lincoln noted, there was an "efficient corps of aiders and abettors" of treason loose in Maryland. Surely, the stopping of federal authorities from arresting people under suspension of the Writ would have helped Merryman's cause?
Lincoln oustwitted the traitors at every turn.
He saved Maryland for the Union and he saved the Union itself. That is what galls you.
But you hate the United States. Damn the United States to hell, right?
Walt
No, not really. He's asserted without evidence and on his own authority...
Yeah. Well, he is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. That's a bit heavier artillery than you have.
Walt
No, not really. My artillery includes Marshall and Taney, both of them chief justices. Two chief justices beats one.
But recall, that is not all I've presented. My artillery also includes a president and founding father, Thomas Jefferson. It includes Madison, in his record of the constitutional convention. It also includes constitutional convention delegate Robert Yates, in his anti-federalist article.
All things considered, my artillery trounces yours.
Merryman DID go to court. That is how Taney got his case in the first place. Merryman won that case and therefore had no reason to seek its overturn.
Of course, as Mr. Lincoln noted, there was an "efficient corps of aiders and abettors" of treason loose in Maryland. Surely, the stopping of federal authorities from arresting people under suspension of the Writ would have helped Merryman's cause?
Not if they simply charged him with a crime, as would have been the legal process.
But you hate the United States. Damn the United States to hell, right?
No, not really. That does sound like something a person such as yourself would assert in light of your extreme and offensive "blame America first" views about September 11th.
So you ARE suggesting “that one violation of the Constitution somehow justifies another.” How nice. I had expected better of you – God only knows why...
;>)
Whenever someone has the temerity to criticize Saint Jefferson of Davis you southron types always trot out Clinton. And other than the fact that both were hack southern politicians I don't get the connection.
"Southron types?" I'm from Minnesota - and (unlike most of the 'union-at-any-cost-types' here ;>) I've actually read the Constitution. As for your comments, you are entirely mistaken: “whenever someone has the temerity to” suggest that rule by the President’s ‘sense of morality’ somehow ‘trumps’ the rule of law, I “trot out Clinton” – and Mr. Lincoln. Funny how you ‘morality-is-more-important-than-law’ types always attempt to change the subject...
;>)
So was Mr. Washington – but you offer up quotes from Mr. Washington. So was every author of the Federalist Papers, but you nevertheless post out-of-context quotes from the Federalist Papers. And so was Mr. Chief Justice Marshall, but you (of course) quote certain carefully selected judicial opinions by that political appointee. But then, no one ever suggested that you were not a hypocrite – did they?
;>)
But there were enough "living, patriotic men" -- better than gold, as President Lincoln said, to preserve the Union -- it was never dissolved.
“Never dissolved?” My, oh my! You are once again completely ignoring the readily available historical documentation:
”The belligerent character of the Southern States was recognized by the United States... The Southerners should be treated as a conquered alien enemy and appropriated to the payment of the national debt. This can be done without violence to the established principles only on the theory that the Southern States were severed from the Union and were an independent government de facto, and an alien enemy to be dealt with according to the laws of war. Absurd to think of trying the leaders for treason. That would be acting under the Constitution...
"No reform can be effected in the Southern States if they have never left the Union... But by treating them as an outside, conquered people, they can be refused admission to the Union unless they voluntarily do what we demand.”
Congressman Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania, quoted by New York World, September 11, 1865
Looks like the Northern politicians of the era recognized what you do not – the union was in fact “dissolved.”
;>)
All you have to dispute what those men accomplished is sophistry.
It's you who ignores the rule of law.
Actually, ‘all I have to dispute what those men accomplished’ is a written Constitution. (You ought to read it sometime!) Find a constitutional clause that prohibits secession (rather than reserving that right to the States, as the Tenth Amendment clearly does ;>), and you might have an argument. Until then, your arguments do not even amount to “sophistry” – you, my friend, are nothing but a bullsh!t artist...
;>)
And you seem to be saying that constitutional violations by Jefferson Davis were permissible. I had expected no less from you.
LOL! By all means, please explain why you believe I "seem to be saying that constitutional violations" of any sort by government officials are "permissible." Please be specific. You appear to have confused me with your entertaining friend Walt!
Or perhaps you are simply engaging in that notorious liberal passtime - accusing your opponent of what you yourself have done. When caught in the act, those same liberals often revert to the 'two-wrongs-make-a-right-argument.' Tell us: will you now insist that the federal government could ignore the Constitution that created it, simply because the president of the Confederate States presumably violated that country's Constitution? Most of us (I'm not sure about #3Fan and some of your other compatriots ;>) are well aware that Mr. Davis' 'questionable' actions as President of the Confederacy occurred after the secession of the Southern States. But feel free to 'prove' secession unconstitutional on the basis of Jefferson Davis' acts as president, if that's the best you can do...
;>)
I had expected no less from you.
And if you continue to 'develop' your communications skills, you will soon be giving Walt a run for his money. Bravo!
;>)
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.