LOL!
Posted on 08/13/2003 6:57:47 AM PDT by bedolido
I suppose it might appear that way, but I believe it was just a matter of Attorney General Bates clearing up all unfinished business as he resigned from office.
Abraham Lincoln Papers at the Library of Congress. Transcribed and Annotated by the Lincoln Studies Center, Knox College. Galesburg, Illinois.
From Edward Bates to Abraham Lincoln, November 24, 1864
Washington, Novr 24. 1864
Honored Sir,
For some months past, you have been aware of my desire to withdraw from the active labors & constant cares of the office which I hold by your favor.
Heretofore, heretofore it has not been compatible with my ideas of duty to the public & fidelity to you, to leave my post of service for any private considerations, however urgent. Then, the fate of the nation hung, in doubt & gloom-- Even your own fate, as identified with the nation, was a source of much anxiety. Now, on the contrary, the affairs of the government display a brighter aspect; and to you, as head & leader of the government, all the honor & good fortune that we hoped for, has come. And it seems to me, under these altered circumstances, that the time has come, when I may, without dereliction of duty, ask leave to retire to private life.
In tendering the resignation of my office of Attorney General of the United States (which I now do) I gladly sieze the occasion to repeat the expression of my gratitude, not only for your good opinion which led to my appointment, but also for your uniform & unvarying courtesy & kindness during the whole time in which we have been associated in the public service. The memory of that kindness & personal favor, I shall bear with me into private life, and hope to retain it in my heart, as long as I live.
Pray let my resignation take effect on the last day of November.1
[Note 1 Lincoln accepted Bates' resignation and tendered the office of Attorney General to Joseph Holt. Holt declined the offer and recommended the appointment of James Speed. Lincoln followed Holt's recommendation and offered the position to Speed who accepted. See Joseph Holt to Lincoln, November 30 and December 1, 1864; James Speed to Lincoln, December 1, 1864; and Collected Works, VIII, 126.]
With heartfelt respect
I remain your
friend & servant
Edwd. Bates
For some blacks. What he said in that speech was:
"It is also unsatisfactory to some that the elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers."His exclusionary and conditional requirements were clearly stated. I wonder what he planned for the rest, the ones he didn't consider "very intelligent", or who didn't serve as soldiers? Perhaps his meeting with General Butler provides the answer to that very obvious question. At any rate, he felt it important enough to make it clear that he disagreed with the idea of "universal" black suffrage being promoted by some. That was the point of his statement.
??? It's addressed in Article One (Legislative Branch), Section Nine (Limits on Congress). It's quite delegated.
Not true. His despotic action was found to be unconstitutional by a Federal Circuit Court almost immediately after he did it, and that ruling was never challenged. Lincoln simply ignored the Court, in true tyrant fashion. Many many many thousands of Northern citizens and members of the Press were arrested without charges and locked away in cells without due process as guaranteed by the Constitution. All in areas where the Courts never ceased to function and there was no "rebellion" or "insurrection". Can you say "Police State"?
Bottom line, it's a moot point: as far as when Lincoln took the action, it was legal for him to do so.
No, it wasn't and even Lincoln himself admitted that to be the case:
"I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful, by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the constitution, through the preservation of the nation. Right or wrong, I assumed this ground, and now avow it." - Letter to A.G. Hodges
BTW, if you'll read your Constitution, you'll see that not only does it NOT contain an such an asinine (and dangerous) method of Amendment, but it also specifically states that ex post facto laws are UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Sorry, but Lincoln violated his oath and trashed the Constitution. Even Lincoln says so.
Hey, folks ! I took a few seconds to write a thank you e-mail to Bernard Chapin, the guy that wrote this article. I mentioned that I found it here on this thread on FR.Here was his reply ...
Thank you, Richard. Yeah, I got about five emails in an hour on Thursday and I thought, "somebody posted it on Freerepublic!" I love that site.
Freepers are a fine breed. Thanks for reading, Bernard Chapin
Hey, .06, now this is a classic strawman. Note how thatdewd has changed the whole thing to ex post facto laws and amending the Constitution from out of the blue, then argues their constitutionality? Even though that wasn't what was being discussed, nor a position espoused by me?
Hey, dewd, calm down. We can't have a reasonable discussion if you go off on a tirade about police states and tyrants. Were he the police-state ruling tyrant you feel, why did he stand for re-election at the end of his term, instead of merely establishing a dictatorship? (that question was rhetorical, btw. I haven't the time, energy, nor inclination to get into that can of grits.)
Many many many thousands of Northern citizens and members of the Press were arrested without charges and locked away in cells without due process as guaranteed by the Constitution. All in areas where the Courts never ceased to function and there was no "rebellion" or "insurrection".
And was not ruled on by the USSC until 1866, when it was held to be unconstitutional. A year after Lincoln was killed. Five years after habeus corpus was suspended. I posted a link some days ago, regarding the timeline, check it out. Riots and attacks on trains look a whole lot like insurrection to me.
Not true. His despotic action was found to be unconstitutional by a Federal Circuit Court almost immediately after he did it, and that ruling was never challenged. Lincoln simply ignored the Court, in true tyrant fashion.
That would have been the ruling by Taney, right? The same Taney who ruled in the Dred Scott case, right? Maybe there was a good reason Taney's rulings were ignored in a time of war, perhaps because he was a political stooge for the copperheads.
Tell you what, I'll even grant you that, in light of subsequent rulings, Lincoln was ill-advised in his assumption of powers. But, at the time he took them, there was reason for him to believe they could be legally assumed, and pressing emergency reasons for him to do so. Congress was not in session, and the events in Maryland were happening apace. Would you have had him allow Maryland to fall into civil disorder, isolating Washington DC?
Bottom line, it's a moot point: as far as when Lincoln took the action, it was legal for him to do so.
No, it wasn't and even Lincoln himself admitted that to be the case:
"I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful, by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the constitution, through the preservation of the nation. Right or wrong, I assumed this ground, and now avow it." - Letter to A.G. Hodges
Your out-of-context quotation from the above letter is in regards to his actions on slavery (the Emancipation Proclamation) written in 1864, not on habeus corpus in 1861. Let me quote a further section of this letter, since Lincoln summed up my view of the war better than I could:
I claim not to have controlled events, but confess plainly that events have controlled me. Now, at the end of three years struggle the nation’s condition is not what either party, or any man devised, or expected. God alone can claim it. Whither it is tending seems plain. If God now wills the removal of a great wrong, and wills also that we of the North as well as you of the South, shall pay fairly for our complicity in that wrong, impartial history will find therein new cause to attest and revere the justice and goodness of God.
The war was a thing that controlled the men of the times, not visa-versa. Not Lincoln, nor Davis, nor any general that commanded troops was in control of anything. Not a one was an unalloyed villain or saint. They all played their cards as their conciences dictated them to do, as their faith in God led them, and as their upbringings constrained them.
That the war happened was a great tragedy, but it served to purge a greater evil from our nation, and left us with a hard-forged character. Without that character, I fear that today, we would be a collection of balkanized petty republics and economic colonies.
That would have been Ex Parte Merryman. [LINK]
First, Lincoln had no authority of ignore the ruling of the court of competent jurisdiction. His two lawful options were to comply with the decision or to appeal the decision.
In the subsequent case of Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2, (1866), [LINK] the Supreme Court unanimously, 9-zip, overturned the conviction of Milligan.
Either the actions of the Lincoln administration were unlawful, or the entire Supreme Court, including all of the Lincoln appointees, were stooges for the copperheads.
In the special session of Congress started in July 1861, the Lincoln administration sought passage of a special resolution (SR-1) which would have declared legal his authorizing the writ to be suspended. That was regurgitated. Congress refused to pass it.
At the time, the power was undelegated to either the Executive or the Legislative; it was simply a power of the Federal govt. during time of insurrection.
At the time, and now, the power to suspend habeas corpus is in Article I which sets forth the powers of the LEGISLATIVE Branch. Article II sets forth the powers of the Executive Branch.
Oh, I'm sorry, I thought Mr. Lincoln was being discussed. If so, then police states and tyrannical behavior would indeed be the topic.
And was not ruled on by the USSC until 1866, when it was held to be unconstitutional.
Mr. Lincoln was informed by a Federal Circuit Court, with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presiding, that his actions were unconstitutional in 1861.
Maybe there was a good reason Taney's rulings were ignored in a time of war, perhaps because he was a political stooge for the copperheads.
Is that the best you can do? Your defense is 'It's OK to ignore the courts if you don't like the judge'? I'll try that one out if I'm ever in court, LOL.
Your out-of-context quotation from the above letter is in regards to his actions on slavery (the Emancipation Proclamation) written in 1864, not on habeus corpus in 1861
It seems you are correct. Sorry about that. I accidentally pasted the wrong quote. Here is the quote I was thinking about:
"Must they [the 'laws'] be allowed to finally fail of execution, even had it been perfectly clear, that by the use of the means necessary to their execution, some single law [habeas corpus], made in such extreme tenderness of the citizen's liberty, that practically, it relieves more of the guilty, than of the innocent, should, to a very limited extent, be violated? To state the question more directly, are all the laws, but one, to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?"
In the same speech he also put forth that ridiculously false argument revisionists and justifiers like to quote about the power to suspend not being delegated in the Constitution. As already stated, it's in Article One (Legislative Branch), Section Nine (limits on Congress). He lied.
We're done. Ain't no use discussing anything with a brick wall.
I do indeed think we are becoming culturally balkanized. I think it is a part of politics becoming more about who has the power and what they will do to get it. Divide and conquer is the method chosen by the class and race hucksters.
America has had no character-defining event for a generation, something that relates to all of us in the way that the Civil War or WWII did. Perhaps the events of 9/11 will serve for this generation -- it is too early to tell.
Lincoln lived in a nation where a large majority barely considered blacks to be humans let alone equals entitled to the vote. Progress had to be made in slow steps and it is to Lincoln's ever-lasting credit that he took those first steps. If Jefferson Davis or any of the toy soldiers you so admire were in charge, all blacks would have been back in chains yet you reserve all of your venom for Lincoln.
You, just like the leftists who spout the same nonsense counting on people to not understand the context of history, are a pure hypocrite and a demogog.
What's you source for that?
Not so, my upset friend. Defending the context and veracity of history is my only concern. If you want to tout some Republican from back then for promoting voting rights for blacks, there are many to choose from, have at it. They are the ones Mr. Lincoln was setting himself apart from in that speech. That's not "venom", Mr. Ditto, that's truth.
LOL!
Of course, they were called "Radical Republicans" in those days and earned a special hatred from the Confederate side.
So tell me, do you admire Thad Stephens?
Butler's autobiography. Contrary to the claims of Wlat and others, that Lincoln and Butler met at the time claimed in his autobiograph is fully corroborated by an April 10, 1865 memo scheduling the meeting from John Hay.
Also, they were the ones who put a hold on Lincoln's Colonization efforts by eliminating funding for his pet program each year after they gained the power to do so. Lincoln didn't give up on it like some on this forum claim, the radicals just took his money away.
So tell me, do you admire Thad Stephens?
Not really. He was a hate-filled vitriolic merchant of misery. He was the extreme of the extreme, and not typical of those whom Lincoln was trying to set himself apart from on the suffrage issue. Many of those men were decent and respectable, unlike our dear Thaddeus. Before Mr Stephens had the South to hate and violate, he hated and persecuted Masons. Everything was a diabolical masonic conspiracy to dear Thad. He was always hating and persecuting someone, through his whole life. Mr. Stephen's early years are very interesting, but yet, they always seems to be either ignored or quickly skimmed through by "historians". I wonder why...(a hint for the more curious amongst us = "pond")
BTW. Do you know where Stephens is buried?
How about Chas. Sunmer? Would you have beat him senseless from behind with a club for 'dissing' your view? Was that a plea for equality.
You guys really do live a myth.
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.