Posted on 01/13/2004 9:01:35 AM PST by Aurelius
Dust jackets for most books about the American Civil War depict generals, politicians, battle scenes, cavalry charges, cannons[sic] firing, photographs or fields of dead soldiers, or perhaps a battle between ironclads. In contrast our book {[url=http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=2XGHOEK4JT&isbn=0842029613&itm=7]Tariffs, Blockades, and Inflation: The Economics of the Civil War Mark Thornton, Steven E. Woodworth (Editor), Robert B. Ekelund[/url]features a painting by Edgar Degas entitled the "Cotton Exchange" which depicts several calm businessmen and clerks, some of them Degas’s relatives, going about the business of buying and selling cotton at the New Orleans Cotton Exchange. The focus of this book is thus on the economic rationality of seemingly senseless events of the Civil War – a critical period in American history.
What caused the war? Why did the Union defeat the Confederacy? What were the consequences of the War? The premise of the book is that historians have a comparative advantage in describing such events, but economists have the tools to help explain these events.
We use traditional economic analysis, some of it of the Austrian and Public Choice variety, to address these principal questions and our conclusions generally run counter to the interpretations of historians. In contrast to historians who emphasize the land war and military strategy, we show that the most important battle took place at sea. One side, the blockade runners, did not wear uniforms or fire weapons at their opponents. The other side, the blockading fleet, was composed of sailors who had weapons and guns but they rarely fired their cannons in hopes of damaging their opponents. Their pay was based on the valued of captured ships. Historians often have argued that the Confederacy lost because it was overly reluctant to use government power and economic controls, but we show the exact opposite. Big Confederate government brought the Confederacy to its knees.
Some now teach that slavery was the sole cause of the Civil War – an explanation that historians have developed in the twentieth century. However, this analysis does not explain why the war started in 1861 (rather than 1851 or 1841) and it fails to explain why slavery was abolished elsewhere without such horrendous carnage.
We emphasize economics and politics as major factors leading to war. The Republicans who came to power in 1860 supported a mercantilist economic agenda of protectionism, inflation, public works, and big government. High tariffs would have been a boon to manufacturing and mining in the north, but would have been paid largely by those in the export-oriented agriculture economy.
Southern economic interests understood the effects of these policies and decided to leave the union. The war was clearly related to slavery, but mainly in the sense that Republican tariffs would have squeezed the profitability out of the slave-based cotton plantation economy to the benefit of Northern industry (especially Yankee textiles and iron manufacturing). Southerners would also have lost out in terms of public works projects, government land giveaways, and inflation.
The real truth about wars is that they are not started over principle, but over power. Wars however, are not won by power on the battlefield, but by the workings and incentives of men who go to work in fields and factories, to those who transport, store and sell consumer goods, and most especially to the entrepreneurs and middlemen who make markets work and adapt to change. This emphasis and this economic account of tariffs, blockade and inflation, like the focus of Degas’s "Cotton Exchange" reveals the most important and least understood aspect of war.
Why?
Article I, Section 1 states "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
Where does it say that the writ can only be suspended through an act of legislation?
And I am saying that your opinion on whether or not the Chief Justice is wrong on the issue is absolutely meaningless. Your opinion counts for nothing because the Supreme Court is tasked with determining what is Constitutional and what is not. Not you. Nor Roger Taney. Not Chief Justice Rehnquist himself. You can continue to spout that President Lincoln's actions on this were unconstitutional. You can say whatever pops into your head. But it isn't true because you say it is. It will only be true if the Supreme Court rules that it was. And that is the one thing you seem to have a great deal of trouble dealing with.
It should be noted that Lincoln delegated the authority to suspend habeas corpus to military officers who delegated further along the military chain of command. It was NOT Lincoln who suspended the writ in the case of Merryman but General Keim in Pennsylvania IIRC.
Congress authorized the suspension of the writ in 1863. The indemnity act did not declare prior acts regarding habeas corpus legal, but provided a legal shield (indemnity) against criminal prosecution or civil lawsuits. Such protection was given to Lincoln and all those who carried out his policy.
The Act of 1863 contained certain requirements and restrictions. In Ex Parte Milligan, the Court held that those requirements had not been complied with and found for Milligan 9-zip on the grounds that the Government action was unlawful. By a majority decision, the Court further held that the Milligan trial, (and all other such trials) was unconstitutional. It is unconstitutional to try a civilian by a military court when the civilian courts are operating normally.
Below is the beginning of my post reviewing the Congressional action. The complete post, including quotes of the Congressional debate, with links to the Congressional Globe, is available here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/953533/posts?page=566#566
U.S. Supreme Court
THE AMY WARWICK, 67 U.S. 635 (1862)
THE BRIG AMY WARWICK.
THE SCHOONER CRENSHAW.
THE BARQUE HIAWATHA.
THE SCHOONER BRILLIANTE.
December Term, 1862
* * *
Mr. Justice GRIER.
* * *
And finally, in 1861, we find Congress 'ex majore cautela' and in anticipation of such astute objections, passing an act 'approving, legalizing, and making valid all the acts, proclamations, and orders of the President, &c., as if they had been issued and done under the previous express authority and direction of the Congress of the United States.' Without admitting that such an act was necessary under the circumstances, it is plain that if the President had in any manner assumed powers which it was necessary should have the authority or sanction of Congress, that on the well known principle of law, 'omnis ratihabitio retrotrahitur et mandato equiparatur,' this ratification has operated to perfectly cure the defect.67 U.S. 635, 670-1
To begin, I wish to point out that this is a lengthy decision and the authors clearly were not champions of brevity for the sake of saving an old growth forest. I will make this point relevant in short order.
The Court appears to say that Congress passed an act approving, legalizing and making valid ALL the previous acts, proclamations, and orders of President Lincoln. Let us examine that quote more closely.
Congress [passed] an act "approving, legalizing, and making valid all the acts, proclamations, and orders of the President, &c.,as if they had been issued and done under the previous express authority and direction of the Congress of the United States."
I have emphasized one (apparently) very short portion of the Act of Congress as it was quoted by the Supreme Court.
Please notice the &c embedded in there. That is an old fashion abbreviation for et cetera. In this case, it denotes words omitted from the Act of Congress which was being quoted. I will now present the material with the missing words restored, as it appears in the official record of the time, The Congressional Globe. Notice how the "President, &c., as" expands.
Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That all the acts, proclamations, and orders of the President of the United States, after the 4th of March, 1861, respecting the Army and Navy of the United States, and calling out or relating to the militia or volunteers from the States, are hereby approved, and in all respects legalized and made valid to the same intent, and with the same effect as if they had been issued and done under the previous express authority and direction of the Congress of the United States.
By my count, the Supremes took out 52 words. They did not do so for the sake of clarity, because the result is most certainly not a clarified version of the original. The debate in the legislature makes abundantly clear that the Act applies only to military appropriations and the callup of the troops. The debate assures that habeas corpus was specifically excluded from consideration by the Act.
Moreover, they did not excise the 52 words in an effort to save a tree.
The Act of Congress which passed was a bill (S. No. 72) "to increase the pay of the privates in the regular Army, and of the volunteers in the service of the United States, and for other purposes."
There was a proposed Joint Resolution (SR-1) "To approve and confirm certain acts of the President of the United States for suppressing insurrection and rebellion." This resolution died without a vote, and fell into such disfavor that by the end of the session its opponents were the one's clamoring for a debate on the resolution. On August 6, 1861, the last day of the special session, Illinois Senator Trumbull disposed of it before it could suffer an embarrasing vote of rejection.
On August 5, Senator Wilson attempted to introduce a new bill, S-70, with the content quoted above. Senator Wilson noted that, "The bill avoids all questions with regard to the habeas corpus and other matters, and refers simply to the military appropriations; and it is necessary we should do this in order to place that subject upon the right ground." ... "It takes but a single point, and avoids the points of debate in the joint resolution that was before the Senate, and simply legalized the action of the President which we have already indorsed, by giving him the authority. It refers merely to a point which it is very necessary for us to consider."
And you took out these:
"By the Constitution, Congress alone has the power to declare a national or foreign war. It cannot declare was against a State, or any number of States, by virtue of any clause in the Constitution. The Constitution confers on the President the whole Executive power. He is bound to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. He is Commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States. He has no power to initiate or declare a war either against a foreign nation or a domestic State. But by the Acts of Congress of February 28th, 1795, and 3d of March, 1807, he is authorized to called out the militia and use the military and naval forces of the United States in case of invasion by foreign nations, and to suppress insurrection against the government of a State or of the United States."
Walt
Here, read the whole post one more time. I know you love reading the Congressional debate ever since you insisted that SR-1 had passed and become law and approved everything that Lincoln did.
U.S. Supreme Court
THE AMY WARWICK, 67 U.S. 635 (1862)
THE BRIG AMY WARWICK.
THE SCHOONER CRENSHAW.
THE BARQUE HIAWATHA.
THE SCHOONER BRILLIANTE.
December Term, 1862
* * *
Mr. Justice GRIER.
* * *
And finally, in 1861, we find Congress 'ex majore cautela' and in anticipation of such astute objections, passing an act 'approving, legalizing, and making valid all the acts, proclamations, and orders of the President, &c., as if they had been issued and done under the previous express authority and direction of the Congress of the United States.' Without admitting that such an act was necessary under the circumstances, it is plain that if the President had in any manner assumed powers which it was necessary should have the authority or sanction of Congress, that on the well known principle of law, 'omnis ratihabitio retrotrahitur et mandato equiparatur,' this ratification has operated to perfectly cure the defect.67 U.S. 635, 670-1
To begin, I wish to point out that this is a lengthy decision and the authors clearly were not champions of brevity for the sake of saving an old growth forest. I will make this point relevant in short order.
The Court appears to say that Congress passed an act approving, legalizing and making valid ALL the previous acts, proclamations, and orders of President Lincoln. Let us examine that quote more closely.
Congress [passed] an act "approving, legalizing, and making valid all the acts, proclamations, and orders of the President, &c.,as if they had been issued and done under the previous express authority and direction of the Congress of the United States."
I have emphasized one (apparently) very short portion of the Act of Congress as it was quoted by the Supreme Court.
Please notice the &c embedded in there. That is an old fashion abbreviation for et cetera. In this case, it denotes words omitted from the Act of Congress which was being quoted. I will now present the material with the missing words restored, as it appears in the official record of the time, The Congressional Globe. Notice how the "President, &c., as" expands.
Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That all the acts, proclamations, and orders of the President of the United States, after the 4th of March, 1861, respecting the Army and Navy of the United States, and calling out or relating to the militia or volunteers from the States, are hereby approved, and in all respects legalized and made valid to the same intent, and with the same effect as if they had been issued and done under the previous express authority and direction of the Congress of the United States.
By my count, the Supremes took out 52 words. They did not do so for the sake of clarity, because the result is most certainly not a clarified version of the original. The debate in the legislature makes abundantly clear that the Act applies only to military appropriations and the callup of the troops. The debate assures that habeas corpus was specifically excluded from consideration by the Act.
Moreover, they did not excise the 52 words in an effort to save a tree.
The Act of Congress which passed was a bill (S. No. 72) "to increase the pay of the privates in the regular Army, and of the volunteers in the service of the United States, and for other purposes."
There was a proposed Joint Resolution (SR-1) "To approve and confirm certain acts of the President of the United States for suppressing insurrection and rebellion." This resolution died without a vote, and fell into such disfavor that by the end of the session its opponents were the one's clamoring for a debate on the resolution. On August 6, 1861, the last day of the special session, Illinois Senator Trumbull disposed of it before it could suffer an embarrasing vote of rejection.
On August 5, Senator Wilson attempted to introduce a new bill, S-70, with the content quoted above. Senator Wilson noted that, "The bill avoids all questions with regard to the habeas corpus and other matters, and refers simply to the military appropriations; and it is necessary we should do this in order to place that subject upon the right ground." ... "It takes but a single point, and avoids the points of debate in the joint resolution that was before the Senate, and simply legalized the action of the President which we have already indorsed, by giving him the authority. It refers merely to a point which it is very necessary for us to consider."
Senator Pearce, who had objected to the introduction of this bill because it might have applied to additional matters was assured by Senator Fessenden, "Entirely so, to those acts only."
As soon as Senator Pearce withdrew his objection, Senator Saulsbury objected.
Senator Fessenden added that, "this is a mere matter of business, and avoids all disputed points."
Senator Saulsbury commented that, "If there is anything in this bill that looks to the toleration of the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, I never will, under any circumstances, vote for it. Sir, that is the bulwark of the freedom of the citizen. If there is nothing in the bill, except to approve the calling out of volunteers --"
Senator King responded, "If the Senator will read it, he will see that there is nothing else in it."
Senator Fessenden commented, "There is nothing in the world in it except what relates to the Army and Navy volunteers. "
Senator Saulsbury withdrew his objection, Senator Powell renewed the objection, and S-70 died.
S-69, for Pay of the Troops came up and Senator Wilson proffered the quoted material as an amendment to that bill. This amendment was agreed to, the yeas and nays being 33-5.
The title of S-69 was amended to read, "A bill to increase the pay of the non-commissioned officers, musicians, and privates of the reglar Army, volunteers, marines, and seamen and ordinary seamen in the service of the United States, and for other purposes."
Senator Wilson asked "leave to introduce a new bill on the same subject, which is more restricted and guarded."
Senator Wilson then obtained leave to let S-69 lie on the table (die) and to introduce S-72 "to increase the pay of the privates in the regular Army, and of the volunteers in the service of the United States, and for other purposes."
Senator Wilson then moved to amend the bill by adding the above quoted material as an additional section of the bill. This amendment was approved with the yeas and nays being 37-5.
The bill was then reported to the Senate as amended, the amendments were concurred in, the bill was read a third time, and it passed. The yeas and nays are not shown.
It now had to go to the house, which it did on August 6, 1861.
The record in the House reads, "The bill was read a first and second time, and was ordered to a third reading. It was read the third time and passed." The yeas and nays are not shown.
Joint Resolution
To approve and confirm certain acts of the President of the United States for suppressing insurrection and rebellion.
This is the Joint Resolution which never came to a vote.
PAGE 438
PAY OF THE TROOPS [S-69]
Mr. WILSON. The Committee on Military Affairs and the militia have instructed me to report a bill (S. No. 69) to increase the pay of the non-commissioned officers, muscians, and privates of the regular Army, volunteers, marines, and seamen in the service of the United States.
The Bill was read a first and second time. It provides that the pay of non-commissioned officers, musicians, and privates of the regular Army and Volunteers, and of the marines, seamen, and ordinary seamen in the service of the United States, be increased by the addition thereto of two dollars per month for three years from and after the passage of this act, and until otherwise provided by law.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. If there be no objection, the bill will be considered at the present time.
MR. KING. For the purpose of giving the Senator from Massachusetts an opportunity to propose an amendment, I move that it be laid over informally; and the Senator from Connecticut can then proceed with his report.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New York objecting, the bill cannot be considered at the present time.
The bill was laid over.
PAGE 441
ARMY AND VOLUNTEER MILITIA [S-70]
Mr. WILSON. I ask leave to introduce a bill of which, no previous notice has been given; and I should like to have it considered now, for it is very important that it should be acted upon.
The bill (S. No. 70) in relation to the Army and volunteer militia of the United States was read a first time by its title.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill will now receive its second reading, if there be no objection.
Mr. PEARCE. I should like to hear the bill read at length before I consent that it shall have its second reading now. I do not think it is treating the Senate with proper consideration to have a bill read twice in one day before we know what it is. Let us see what it is; and if it be not objectionable, of course there will be no opposition to it.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill will be read at length for the information of the Senate.
PAGE 442
The Secretary read it as follows:
Be it enacted &c, That all the acts, proclamations and orders of the President of the United States, after the 4th of March 1861, respecting the Army and Navy of the United States, and calling out, or relating to the militia, or volunteers from the States, are hereby approved, and in all respect legalized and made valid, to the same intent and with the same effect as if they had been done under the previous express authority and direction of the Congress of the United States.
Mr. PEARCE. I must object to its second reading to-day.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I hope my friend from Maryland will hear what I have to say before he objects. This bill takes up a single point only in the resolution that was introduced into the Senate, and upon which there has been considerable debate. It refers simply to the proclamations that were made for, and the employment of volunteers. We have since authorized the employment of the volunteers. But some of the volunteers now make a point that although they have enlisted for three years, yet the President having had no authority at that time, and no legal authority having been conferred upon him by Congress, they are discharged, and cannot be held under that enlistment. That idea will occasion considerable difficulty, and it is necessary that we should, so far as we have the power, legalize the acts of the President upon that particular point. The bill avoids all questions with regard to the habeas corpus and other matters, and refers simply to the military appropriations; and it is necessary we should do this in order to place that subject upon the right ground.
Now, sir, with regard to this bill, there can certainly be no objection that Senators can raise to it, unless they are desirous that a difficulty -- I will no say that --- but unless they fail to see the force of the position in which we are placed with reference to many of these volunteers. I hope, therefore, the Senator from Maryland will withdraw his objection. It takes but a single point, and avoids the points of debate in the joint resolution that was before the Senate, and simply legalized the action of the President which we have already indorsed, by giving him the authority. It refers merely to a point which it is very necessary for us to consider.
Mr. PEARCE. If it refers purely and solely to the volunteers, which I did not exactly understand at first, I withdraw the objection.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Entirely so; to those acts only.
Mr. SAULSBURY. I renew the objection.
Mr. WILSON. The objection is renewed, and that settles it.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Delaware interposes objection, and the bill cannot have its second reading.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I hope the Senator from Delaware will withdraw his objection. It is a matter of importance to pass the bill today.
Mr. SHERMAN. I will state, if it is in order, to the Senator from Delaware, that it is very easy to for the chairman of the Comittee on Military Affairs to get at what he desires in a more objectionable way, by taking up the resolution that we have been discussing, which contains this and other propositions. I am very glad this proposition has come up in this way, and I take it as a matter of course, that if this bill is passed, the other joint resolution will not be called up. It is much better to pass a bill of this kind upon which everybody can vote in the affirmative, that to take up that joint resolution, about which there is so much difference of opinion.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I will add that this is a mere matter of business, and avoids all disputed points.
Mr. SAULSBURY. My objection to the bill is that I have not seen it. In regard to the joint resolution originally submitted by the chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs, there were acts of the President of the United States that I approved. For instance: the proclamation calling out seventy-five thousand men, if it was necessary, to defend this capital, or to defend any portion of the territory of the United States. I was in favor of that. But I have not seen this bill; and I objected to it with a view --
Mr. KING. If the Senator from Delaware will allow me to make a single statement, he will perceive that his objection is not necessary to sustain any principle of his own; nor can it prevent the passage of this proposition.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Delaware objecting to the second reading of this bill, it lies over under the rule of the Senate, and is not now before the Senate for consideration.
Mr. KING. I desire to state to the Senator from Delaware, which he had permitted me to do, that there is a bill on the table, which is intentionally there, which will be taken up, and which will be in order, to which this proposition will be moved as an amendment if this bill is not passed; but it is better that this single isolated proposition should go through by itself, disconnected with any other matter; and it will undoubtedly be agreed to by the House. I hope, therefore, the Senator from Delaware will not persist in his objection. This proposition will be placed on the other bill as an amendment, in a moment, if the objection is persisted in; but it is better that it should be passed as a separate, isolated proposition.
Mr. SAULSBURY. I should like to accomodate my friend from New York; certainly he is very accommodating himself; but if gentlemen on the other side will indulge me a moment, I will say why it was that interposed the objection.
Mr. President, in the earlier state of this session, a joint resolution was introduced approving, in general terms, the acts of the President of the United States. For one, had not such a resolution been introduced, I never would have attacked the President of the United States for his course. I am one of those men who stand in a peculiar position on this point. I am one of those who approve of certain acts of the President, and disapprove of others. As this bill seemed to be only a mode of getting rid of a direct vote upon that joint resolution, by way of substitute, without knowing what was contained in the bill. I felt it incumbent on me to object to its consideration. If there is anything in this bill that looks to the toleration of the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, I never will, under any circumstances, vote for it. Sir, that is the bulwark of the freedom of the citizen. If there is nothing in the bill, except to approve the calling out of volunteers --
Mr. KING. If the Senator will read it, he will see that there is nothing else in it.
Mr. FESSENDEN. There is nothing in the world in it except what relates to the Army and Navy volunteers. The Senator from Maryland has just read it, and says he is perfectly satisfied.
Mr. SAULSBURY. Then on the assurance of the Senator from Maine, I will withdraw the objection.
Mr. POWELL. I renew the objection.
PAY OF THE TROOPS [S-69]
Mr. WILSON. I move to take up the bill I submitted a short time ago increasing the pay of the troops.
The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Comittee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the bill (S. No. 69) to increase the pay of the non-commissioned officers, musicians, and privates of the regular Army, and volunteers, and marines, and seamen, and ordinary seamen, in the service of the United States.
* * *
Mr. WILSON. I now move to amend the bill by adding to it, as an additional section, the bill I sent to the chair a few moments ago:
And be it further enacted, That all the acts, proclamations, and orders of the President of the United States, after the 4th of March, 1861, respecting the Army and Navy of the United States, and calling out or relating to the militia or volunteers from the States, are hereby approved, and in all respects legalized and made valid to the same intent, and with the same effect as if they had been issued and done under the previous express authority and direction of the Congress of the United States.
Mr. BRECKINRIDGE. That sounds a little like our joint resolution to ratify and approve and make valid and legal all the acts of the President since the 4th of March; but one or two features of it are left out. If I may so speak, I observe the absence of one or two features.
Mr. WILSON. I will say to the Senator from Kentucky, if he will allow me, that there is an absence of one or two features of the joint resolution; but as soon as we get the vote on this proposition, I will gratify him if he desires it, by moving to take up the joint resolution for the purpose of having it voted on. I should like to have it acted on to-day.
Mr. BRECKINRIDGE. I was afraid that, in the condition of the public business, with the hurry which exists towards the close of the season, we might lose the opportunity to put our opinions on record upon that resolution. With his promise, however, to call it up for the vote of the Senate, I shall waive any observations on this amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The bill was reported to the Senate as amended, and the amendments were concurred in. The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, and was read the third time.
Mr. POWELL. I ask for the yeas and nays on the passage of the bill.
The yeas and the nays were ordered.
Mr. SAULSBURY. When substantially the same question was up before, I interposed an objection to its present consideration; but on the assurance of the Senator from Maine, I waived the objection. This amendment covers one thing that I cannot possibly vote for; and that is to legalize the act of the President in reference to the increase of the Army and Navy of the United States. I honestly think that that act was not legal, and that we cannot make it legal. Therefore, I shall be compelled to vote against this proposition.
The question being on the yeas and nays, resulted -- yeas 33, nays 5, as follows:
[Yeas and Nays are listed here in the record]
So the bill was passed.
[nc note: Passed as amended by the Senate. It still needed House approval of this amended version.]
On motion of Mr. WILSON, its title was amended by adding the words: "and for other purposes;" so as to make it read: "A bill to increase the pay of the non-commissioned officers, musicians, and privates of the reglar Army, volunteers, marines, and seamen and ordinary seamen in the service of the United States, and for other purposes."
PAGE 443
PAY OF THE TROOPS [S-69] [S-72]
Mr. WILSON moved to reconsider the vote by which the Senate concurred in the amendment of the House of Representatives to the bill (S. No. 69) to increase the pay of the non-commissioned officers, musicians, and privates of the regular Army, volunteers, marines, and seamen and ordinary seamen in the service of the United States, and for other purposes; and the motion was agreed to.
Mr. WILSON. I now move that the House amendment and the bill be ordered to lie on the table.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. WILSON. I now ask leave to introduce a new bill on the same subject, which is more restricted and guarded.
Leave was granted to introduce the bill (S. No. 72) to increase the pay of the privates in the regular Army, and of the volunteers in the service of the United States, and for other purposes; which was read twice, and considered as in committee of the Whole. The bill proposes to increase the pay of the privates to thirteen dollars a month; and also extends the provisions of the act "for the relief of the Ohio and other volunteers" to all volunteers, no matter for what term of service they may have been accepted.
Mr. WILSON. I move to amend the bill by adding the following as an additional section:
Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That all the acts, proclamations, and orders of the President of the United States, after the 4th of March, 1861, respecting the Army and Navy of the United States, and calling out or relating to the militia or volunteers from the States, are hereby approved, and in all respects legalized and made valid to the same intent, and with the same effect as if they had been issued and done under the previous express authority and direction of the Congress of the United States.
Mr. BRECKINRIDGE called for the yeas and nays, and they were ordered; and being taken, resulted -- yeas 37, nays 5; as follows:
[Yeas and Nays are listed here in the record]
So the amendment was agreed to.
The bill was reported to the Senate as amended, and the amendments were concurred in. The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading; and was read the third time, and passed.
[nc note: This is passage by the Senate; it still needed to go to the House.]
PAGE 456
INCREASE OF PRIVATES' PAY [S-72]
Mr. STEVENS. I move to take from the speaker's table Senate bill No. 72, to increase the pay of the privates in the regular Army, and in the volunteers in the service of the United States, and for other purposes.
Mr. CRISFIELD. I object to the consideration of that bill.
Mr. STEVENS. I hope gentlemen will not object. If the bill cannot be passed now, there will be a called session within twenty-four hours.
Mr. VALLANDIGHAM. I desire to ask the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means a question in reference to this bill. I desire to know how this bill comes back here, after the House passed it yesterday?
Mr. STEVENS. This is a new bill.
The SPEAKER. This is an original Senate bill.
Mr. VALLANDIGHAM. We concurred in a similar bill yesterday.
Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. I will inform the gentleman, by leave of the House. I believe this is identically the bill that passed the House, with this exception: that, instead of increasing the pay of privates four dollars per month, this bill increases it but two dollars per month. I suppose that if this bill should not pass, congress would be called back.
Mr. VALLANDIGHAM. It is very easy for the House to recde from its amendment to the bill passed yesterday; and that will leave it all right.
Mr. STEVENS. That bill, with the amendments, was lost in the Senate.
The SPEAKER. Is there any objction to taking up the bill?
Mr. CRISFIELD. I have objected to it.
PAGE 457
INCREASED PAY OF PRIVATES, ETC. [S-72]
Mr. STEVENS. I again appeal to the gentleman who objected to the consideration of the bill for increasing the pay of privates in the regular Army and of volunteers, to withdraw that objection. I understand the bill passed by this House was laid on the table in the Senate. This is a new bill which has passed the senate, and if we adjourn without passing it, it will cause very great inconvenience, and perhaps create the necessity of our being called back in antoher extra session.
Mr. CRISFIELD. I withdraw my objection.
Mr. JOHNSON. I object.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to suspend the rules.
The question was taken; and the rules were suspended, (two thirds having voted therefor.)
The bill was thereupon taken up for consideration. It proposes to increase the pay of the privates to thirteen dollars a month; and also extends the provisions of the act "for the relief of the Ohio and other volunteers": to all volunteers, no matter for what term of service they may have been accepted. It also directs that all the acts, proclamations, and orders, of the President of the United States, after the 4th of March, 1861, respecting the Army and Navy of the United States, and calling out or relating to the militia or volunteers from the States, are hereby approved and in all respects legalized and made valid to the same intent and with the same effect as if they had been issued and done under the previous express authority and direction of the Congress of the United States.
The bill was read a first and second time, and was ordered to a third reading. It was read the third time and passed.
Mr. STEVENS moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved to lay the motion to reconsider on the table.
The latter motion was agreed to.
[nc note: This was passage of the bill, S-72]
=====
The Militia Act of 1795 begins on page 1508 and ends on page 1510.
The Annals of Congress 3rd Congress, 2nd Session
An Act to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress insurrection and repel invasions, and to repeal the act now in force for those purposes.
Be it enacted, &c., That whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth such number of the militia of the State or States most convenient to the place of danger or scene of action, as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion, and to issue his orders for that purpose to such officer or officers of the militia as he shall think proper. And, in case of an insurrection in any State against the Government thereof, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States,on application of the Legislature of such State, or of the Executive, (when the Legislature cannot be convened,) to call forth such number of the militia of any other State or States as may be applied for, as he may judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection,
Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed, or the execution thereof obstructed in any State, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the Marshals by this act, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such State, or of any other State or States, as may be necessary to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed; and the use of militia so to be called forth, may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the then next session of Congress,
Sec. 3. Provided always, and be it further enacted, That whenever it may be necessary, in the judgment of the President, to use the military force hereby directed to be called forth, the President shall forthwith, by proclamation, command such insurgents to disperse, and retire peaceably to their respective abodes within a limited time,
Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That the militia employed in the service of the United Status shall be subject to the same rules and articles of war as the troops of the United States; and that no officer, non-commissioned officer, or private of the militia, shall be compelled to serve more than three months after his arrival at the place of rendezvous, in any one year, nor more than in due rotation with every other able-bodied man of the same rank in the battalion to which he belongs.
Sec 5. And he it further enacted, That every officer, non-commissioned officer, or private of the militia, who shall fail to obey the orders of the President of the United States, in any of the cases before recited, shall forfeit a sum not exceeding one year's pay, and not less than one month's pay, to be determined and adjudged by a court-martial; and such officers shall moreover be liable to be cashiered, by sentence of a court-martial, and be incapacitated from holding a commission in the militia for a term not exceeding twelve months, at the discretion of the said court; and such non-commissioned officers and privates shall be liable to be imprisoned, by a like sentence, on failure of payment of the fines adjudged against them, for one calendar month for every five dollars of such fine.
Sec 6. And be it further enacted, That courts-martial for the trial of militia shall be composed of militia officers only.
Sec 7. And be it further enacted, That all fines to be assessed, as aforesaid, shall be certified by the presiding officer of the court-martial, before whom the same shall be assessed, to the Marshal of the District in which the delinquent shall reside, or to one of his deputies, and also to the Supervisor of the Revenue of the same District, who shall record the said certificate in a book, to be kept for that purpose. The said Marshal or his deputy shall forthwith proceed to levy the said fines, with costs, by distress and sale of the goods and chattels of the delinquent; which costs and the manner of proceeding, with respect to the sale of the goods distrained, shall be agreeable to the laws of the State in which the same shall be in other cases of distress. And where any non-commissioned officer or private shall be adjudged to suffer imprisonment, there being no goods or chattels to be found, whereof to levy the said fines, the Marshal of the District or his deputy may commit such delinquent to jail during the term for which he shall be so adjudged to imprisonment, or until the fine shall be paid, in the same manner as other persons condemned to fine and imprisonment at the suit of the United States may be committed.
Sec, 8. And be it further enacted, That the Marshals and their deputies shall pay all such fines by them levied to the Supervisor of the Revenue in the District in which they are collected within two months after they shall have received the same, deducting therefrom five per centum as a compensation for their trouble; and, in case of failure, the same shall be recoverable by action of debt or information in any Court of the United States of the district in which such fines shall be levied, having cognizance thereof, to be sued for, prosecuted, and recovered, in the name of the Supervisor of the District, with interest and costs.
Sec. 9. And be it further enacted, That the Marshals of the several Districts and their deputies shall have the same powers, in executing the laws of the United States, as Sheriffs and their deputies in the several States have, by law, in executing the laws of the respective States.
Sec. 10. And be it further enacted, That the act, entitled "An act to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions," passed the second day of May, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-two, shall be and the same is hereby repealed.
Approved, February 28, 1795.
There is nothing in the act that precludes unilateral action by the President.
The Supreme Court read it that way, in any case.
Walt
Lincoln did not suspend habeas corpus unconstitutionally. Something is not unconstitutional just because you claim it was. The south did not suspend habeas corpus in a limited sense. Habeas corpus was suspended and martial law declared throughout the south, and as Mark Neeley points out in his book military tribunals operated in every part of the confederacy for most of the war. People were jailed without habeas corpus and detained without trial. And Northern courts could issue writs in their own jurisdiction for the entire war as well.
LOL. Your favorate spider hole.
Homeschoolerss, please teach your friendss and familiess about improper pluralizationss.
I do not think that is entirely accurate. How can the other two branches properly discharge their oaths to "defend and protect" the Constitution if they are not allowed to determine what is constitutional and what isn't? And when the courts exceed their authority in their rulings (Dred Scott, Roe, Doe, Lawrence v. Texas, etc.), are the other two branches to just stand by and allow such perversions of the law? No, they cannot since they have taken oaths to "defend and protect" the Constitution. Clearly, the courts are not the ONLY arbiters of what is constitutional and what isn't. Who is to hold bad judges accountable? Why is there a remedy of impeachment of bad judges?
And when the courts exceed their authority in their rulings (Dred Scott, Roe, Doe, Lawrence v. Texas, etc.), are the other two branches to just stand by and allow such perversions of the law?
In the first case, the courts did not exceed their authority in either of those cases. In the second case, Congress can propose amendments to the Constitution that supercede any decision the Supreme Court may hand down and, if passed, send them to the states for ratification.
Who is to hold bad judges accountable? Why is there a remedy of impeachment of bad judges?
There is a remedy of impeachment for judges for misbehavior. However, your disagreeing with their decisions does not constitute bad behavior.
meaningless, repetive drivel!
free dixie,sw
Yes. Do you?
as long as they are hateFILLED & DISHONEST about what the WBTS was REALLY about (CONQUEST of a small, poor, NEW nation!), ALL true SOUTHRONS will dispise them, as we love TRUTH.
free dixie,sw
Yes he did.
Something is not unconstitutional just because you claim it was.
No. Something is unconstitutional because it violates part of the constitution. Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus did just that. See Ex Parte Merryman for the details.
The south did not suspend habeas corpus in a limited sense.
Yes it did. The suspension applied only to federal courts and thus was limited. See the habeas corpus act for the details.
Let me get this straight: You don't think that sanctioning the murder of unborn babies is exceeding their authority (Roe & Doe)? How about newborn babies - would that convince you? You don't think that the right to life trumps the right to privacy? Let's see you defend that position logically and morally. You agree with Taney's court (Dred Scott) that a black man is 3/5 of a person (a clear denial of the bedrock principle that "all men are created equal" the founders did not say this - they used non-citizen slaves as a means to formulate populations for purposes of representation). You believe that "sodomy" is a constiutional right (Lawrence v. Texas) - where is it?
In the second case, Congress can propose amendments to the Constitution that supercede any decision the Supreme Court may hand down and, if passed, send them to the states for ratification.
Tell me, what does a bad judge have to do in your opinion to warrant his removal by impeachment? Inquiring minds want to know.
No, he did not.
No. Something is unconstitutional because it violates part of the constitution. Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus did just that.
And a constiutional violation does not occur just because you say it does. Or when an Circuit Court judge says it does. It occurs when a majority of the Supreme Court justices agrees that it has occured.
The suspension applied only to federal courts and thus was limited.
By that definition then so was Lincoln's.
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.