HOME/ABOUT  Prayer  SCOTUS  ProLife  BangList  Aliens  StatesRights  ConventionOfStates  WOT  HomosexualAgenda  GlobalWarming  Corruption  Taxes  Congress  Fraud  MediaBias  GovtAbuse  Tyranny  Obama  ObamaCare  Elections  Layoffs  NaturalBornCitizen  FastandFurious  OPSEC  Benghazi  Libya  IRS  Scandals  TalkRadio  TeaParty  FreeperBookClub  HTMLSandbox  FReeperEd  FReepathon  CopyrightList  Copyright/DMCA Notice 

Calling all FReepers: We need to wrap this baby up by the end of the month. If you have not yet made your donation, please do so today. We can do this. Thank you very much!!

Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Free Republic 2nd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $76,481
86%  
Woo hoo!! And now less than $11.6k to go!! We can do this. Thank you all very much!! Let's git 'er done!!

Posts by rustbucket

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • THE FREEPER CANTEEN - The What's Your Donut Personality Quiz - Wednesday, May 27, 2015

    05/28/2015 10:32:42 PM PDT · 85 of 85
    rustbucket to StoneWall Brigade

    Thanks for the ping. I hadn’t seen or heard of the Texas Rising series, but I’ll be sure to watch it. I see that the first two episodes are online.

  • How the Civil War Changed the World

    05/20/2015 6:29:24 PM PDT · 155 of 259
    rustbucket to Bubba Ho-Tep

    Many thanks, Bubba, for posting the link to the Texas document. I’ve not seen that before. The document lists the dates of abandonment of the forts in the state, the first comprehensive listing of those dates I’ve seen.

    Whoever pieced the document together or reassembled it sometime in the past, might have done it from partial pieces or loose pages as they sometimes got the pieces put together incorrectly. Even so, it is still an interesting document.

    I see mention in it of my great great grandfather’s commander in the war, John Salmon R.I.P. Ford, a former Texas Ranger captain who was hell on wheels. They drove the Federals down the Rio Grande Valley to an offshore island alhough the Federals had three times as many men.

  • Why Is Kelly Only Asking Cruz About Jeb?

    05/12/2015 8:55:41 PM PDT · 79 of 108
    rustbucket to sheikdetailfeather
    I saw Brit Hume say “There is so much ignorance out there on Common Core.”

    I saw that too. He was basically insulting much of the Fox audience. At that point, I turned the program off.

  • Take a chill pill: Jeb Bush dismisses dip in polls, defends immigration stance

    05/11/2015 8:27:47 PM PDT · 13 of 20
    rustbucket to jimbo123
    The last sentence in the article quotes Jeb as saying, "“I haven’t been in Washington … ever. I’m not part of Washington.”."

    He needs to be more careful or precise with words. Here is an article about Jeb in Washington: Jeb in DC.

    Is it true he also said, "Read my lips. No Obama amnesty."

  • Lincoln sought to deport freed slaves

    05/06/2015 9:20:23 PM PDT · 192 of 194
    rustbucket to Bubba Ho-Tep; central_va
    What usurpations? Suspending habeas? Davis did that.

    Lincoln suspended habeas corpus numerous times without congressional authorization. As far as I know, Davis only suspended habeas corpus for those periods and in specific areas that his Congress had authorized him to suspend it.

    Shutting down newspapers? The confederates locked up their first newspaper editor one day after Ft. Sumter was shelled.

    Counting Southern newspaper suppressions is a losing tactic for Union supporters considering the huge number of newspaper suppressions/destructions in the North. I know of maybe five or six suppressions/destructions of newspapers by Southerners, most of which were by mobs and in some cases happened before the war.

    Was the example you cite perchance a correspondent of the Pensacola Observer newspaper named Mathews who published when Confederate General Braxton Bragg was planning to attack Fort Pickens? The published information was then taken to the fort, allowing its commander to immediately request aid from the offshore Union fleet. The fleet quickly furnished 100 men and ammunition to the fort, and Bragg's planned attack was thwarted. Mathews was arrested -- I don't know what ultimately happened to him.

    Under Davis, Confederate forces spread terror among Unionist areas of the south.

    Two areas come to my mind: East Tennessee and parts of Texas. There may well be other areas. I don't think they were as significant in scale as what Lincoln and his forces did in Maryland and Missouri.

    Re: East Tennessee. The East Tennesseans started destroying railroad bridges after the war started. That resulted in Confederate forces being deployed against them. To those on the receiving end of the Confederate reprisals, it may have seemed that the Confederates were spreading terror, and it is possible that they may have been. When the Union got in control of East Tennessee a couple of years later, the Unionist East Tennesseans did the same things back to the Confederate inhabitants of East Tennessee. That harassment continued after the war was over.

    Re: Texas. In the case of Texas, two situations come to mind: the Great Hanging at Gainesville in 1862 (you mentioned that upthread) and the "massacre" of German unionists at the Nueces River in 1862.

    Re: The Great Hanging at Gainesville: From the book, "Tainted Breeze, The Great Hanging at Gainesville, Texas 1862":

    "...Young [the prosecutor in Gainesville] focused on ferreting out only the members who had planned a violent uprising. Young's queries as prosecuting attorney ... did reveal the outlines of a terrifying plot. Several admitted they intended to take possesion of North Texas using munitions from militia arsenals in Gainesville and Sherman...They had identified Confederate sympathizers and intended to murder them and their families..."

    Some of the Unionists admitted to trying to contact the Union army and disaffected Indian tribes to coordinate an uprising. They reportedly managed to get some gunpowder from one of the Indian tribes. (These communications were a violation of the Confederate Articles of War, I believe, and punishable by death as specified in the Articles.)

    One of the Unionists boasted to the public from the hanging tree of his comrades' plan to kill Confederate men, women, and children. I'm sure that inflamed the community. (One of the jurors had reported that there were 300-400 armed men in sight in Gainesville on Oct 1, the day of mass arrest, so there the makings of a mob were present.)

    When alerted of possible lynch mob activities, the jury quickly tried and released over a dozen prisoners to keep them out of the lynch mob's reach.

    From "Lone Star Blue and Gray" by Ralph A. Wooster: A Gainesville mob was responsible for about 25 hangings in response to stories of unionist plans to burn the homes of Confederate sympathizers and kill Confederate men, women, and children. This happened before the jury trial was arranged.

    Re: the "massacre" of German Unionists on the Nueces River, 1862. The German unionists in Central Texas had formed three military companies favoring the Union. They abandoned the companies at the insistence of a Confederate officer, but about 65 of them left Central Texas for Mexico where they planned to take a boat to New Orleans to join the Union Army. The Confederates found out their plan and chased after them attacking the Germans at dawn (although some individual shots were fired killing pickets some minutes before it became light enough to attack). The battle took place about a day's ride from Mexico. The Confederates killed about 32 of the Germans and wounded many others. Two of the Texans were killed and 18 wounded.

  • KUSC Classical Top 100 Countdown

    05/02/2015 7:29:45 PM PDT · 79 of 82
    rustbucket to EveningStar
    Vivaldi doesn't have near enough votes. Here is a Vivaldi piece I heard after I took a Music Before 1750 course at MIT back in the Dark Ages. I think this is RV 558 (my old vinyl recording did not list the RV number).

    Vivaldi Concerto in C Major for Diverse Instruments, allegro RV 558

    That left Bach in the dust for me, and I never looked back.

  • Lincoln sought to deport freed slaves

    04/29/2015 3:06:07 PM PDT · 136 of 194
    rustbucket to StoneWall Brigade
    I believe 4CJ has posted some stuff on Lincoln wanting to send the freed slaves back to Africa when he was posting on here.

    Thanks for the reminder about 4CJ. Here was one of his posts containing prewar quotes from Lincoln that illustrate his [Lincoln's] thoughts about the blacks. Link to 4CJ post 122.

    Then there is the 1864-65 trip of General Dan Sickles to Colombia to discuss colonization there at the behest of Lincoln. Here, from the Dayton Daily Empire Newspaper of June 2, 1865 is the following mention of Sickles, Lincoln and the mission to Colombia [Source].

    The Negroes of the U.S. To Be Sent To Bogota

    It is understood that the mission of General Sickles to was for the purpose of obtaining grants of lands for the purpose of settling them with blacks from the United States, and that the late President who authorized the mission, was willing to give fifteen millions of dollars for adequate territory.
  • Lincoln sought to deport freed slaves

    04/29/2015 1:32:57 PM PDT · 130 of 194
    rustbucket to StoneWall Brigade
    Perhaps some information about Phil Magness's research into Benjamin Butler's supposed 1865 meeting with Lincoln about colonization is worthy of a read: Benjamin Butler's Colonization Testimony Reevaluated.

    Phillip Magness is the researcher cited by the Washington Times article with which this thread began.

  • Lincoln assassinated

    04/19/2015 3:23:42 PM PDT · 318 of 334
    rustbucket to DoodleDawg; DiogenesLamp
    Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus in April 1861 was limited to the Baltimore area alone, where the unrest was occurring. Link

    Later, wider suspensions of habeas corpus came later after the congressional vote.

    Your post might leave the impression with some that outside of the two suspensions of habeas corpus in your link that Lincoln didn't suspend habeas corpus in other places and in wider areas until after Congress in 1863 authorized him to suspend habeas corpus. To correct that possible misinterpretation, here are some other occasions that Lincoln and others suspended habeas corpus:

    April 13, 1861. US Army Colonel Harvey Brown leaves a proclamation suspending habeas corpus in Key West, Florida with Bvt. Major W. H. French commanding Fort Taylor in Key West with instructions to use it if needed and saying that "its legality has been determined by higher authority." [Source]. I wonder who that higher authority might be who issued such a order even before Colonel Brown sailed to Key West with the Fort Pickens expedition sent by Lincoln in April. I wonder who authorized a mere Colonel to authorize a mere Bvt. Major to suspend habeas corpus.

    April 27, 1861. Lincoln issues his suspension of habeas corpus between Washington DC and Philadelphia. You kindly provided a link to that proclamation.

    May 6, 1861. Bvt. Major French posts Colonel Brown's proclamation suspending habeas corpus in Key West. French also suppresses an newspaper in Key West, the "Key of the Gulf" newspaper, certainly one of the first of many newspaper suppressions in the North and South by the Union during the war. [Source].

    May 10, 1861. Lincoln issues a proclamation suspending habeas corpus in the islands of Key West, the Tortugas, and Santa Rosa. [Source].

    June 20, 1861. Lincoln authorizes General Winfield Scott or any officer he designates to suspend habeas corpus in the case of Major William Henry Chase, who resigned from the US Army in 1856 but had become a major general of Florida State Troops in the Confederate Army in 1861. [Source].

    July 2, 1861. Lincoln suspends habeas corpus between Philadelphia and New York City. [I've seen a number of references to this suspension but haven't found the actual wording].

    October 23, 1861. Lincoln suspends habeas corpus in matters relating to the military in Washington, DC. [Source].

    December 2, 1861. Lincoln suspends habeas corpus in Missouri. You kindly provided a link to that proclamation.

    August 6, 1862. Lincoln suspends habeas corpus throughout the US for cases involving discouraging enlistment in the military, aid to the enemy, and persons arrested for disloyal practices. This proclamation orders that "no citizen liable to be drafted into the military service, be allowed to go into a foreign country." The proclamation was issued for Lincoln by Stanton. [Source].

    September 24, 1862. Lincoln issues a nationwide proclamation covering much of the same ground as the one issued in August, but without the prohibition on leaving the country. However, the August proclamation still remained in effect. [Source].

    The above list came from my cursory search for Lincoln's suspensions prior to 1863. There may be some other suspensions in this period that I missed.

  • Lincoln assassinated

    04/17/2015 9:02:43 AM PDT · 283 of 334
    rustbucket to DoodleDawg

    FYI, you are doing a great impression of former poster non-sequitur’s posting style right down to misspelling “arguments” like he used to do. I respected non-seq although we rarely agreed on anything. I learned a lot by refuting his posts, and he sometimes posted useful information.

  • Lincoln assassinated

    04/16/2015 6:23:31 PM PDT · 281 of 334
    rustbucket to DoodleDawg
    But since habeas corpus had not been suspended then the comments were made in dicta.

    Others say differently, From Wikipedia (caution, it's Wikipedia) [my bold below]:

    The Department of Justice has taken the position in litigation that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 does not amount to a suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit agreed in a 2-1 decision,[48] on February 20, 2007,[49] which the U.S. Supreme Court initially declined to review. The U.S. Supreme Court then reversed its decision to deny review and took up the case in June 2007. In June 2008, the court ruled 5-4 that the act did suspend habeas and found it unconstitutional.[50]

    Except for the fact that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 mentioned above applied to aliens rather than citizens, it was similar to the act under which Hamdi was denied habeas corpus as an enemy combatant by the Executive Branch of government. Here is what the 2006 act said:

    Except as provided in section 1005 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination." §1005(e)(1), 119 Stat. 2742.
  • Lincoln assassinated

    04/16/2015 3:12:54 PM PDT · 279 of 334
    rustbucket to DoodleDawg
    I doubt if we agree on this. Hamdi was denied habeas corpus because the Executive Branch said he was an enemy combatant.

    From Hamdi's lawyer's opening statement:

    ORAL ARGUMENT OF FRANK W. DUNHAM, JR. ON BEHALF OF PEITIONERS

    MR. DUNHAM: Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:

    Petitioner Hamdi is a citizen who has been held over two years in the United States with no opportunity to be heard as to the facts on which his detention is based. Mr. Hamdi makes two claims. First, the Fourth Circuit wrongly prevented Hamdi in this habeas proceeding from being heard as to the facts of the case on grounds that allowing him to be heard would interfere with executive power.

    Second, that the Fourth Circuit erred in finding even on the one-sided record that's before this Court that his detention is authorized by law. The historical core of habeas corpus is to challenge extrajudicial executive detention. It cannot be a violation of the separation of powers for an Article III court to perform its judicial function of inquiry into long-term, indefinite detention of a citizen in a habeas corpus proceeding.

    Quoting from INS v. St. Cyr, at its historical core, the writ of habeas corpus has served as a means of reviewing the legality of executive detention and it is in that context that its protections have been strongest.

    Now look at the excerpt from the Supreme Court decision:

    "it would turn our system of checks and balances on its head to suggest that a citizen could not make his way to court with a challenge to the factual basis for his detention by his government, simply because the Executive opposes making available such a challenge. Absent suspension of the writ by Congress, a citizen detained as an enemy combatant is entitled to this process."
  • Lincoln assassinated

    04/16/2015 12:26:31 PM PDT · 276 of 334
    rustbucket to DoodleDawg
    The statements made in the Hamdi decision were made in dicta since habeas corpus had not been suspended, just denied.

    That is a "depends on what the meaning of is is" type of response. Denied, suspended. One or two habeas corpus petitions had been filed for Hamdi, and the Executive Branch denied them. Congress hadn't suspended the right of habeas corpus, so habeas corpus can't be denied to a prisoner even if the Executive supports denying it. The decision said the Executive department could not deny Hamdi the right to be heard in court (i.e., habeas corpus) under the due process aspect of the Fifth Amendment. Taney had also said in his Ex Parte Merriman order that due process was being violated by Lincoln.

    Scalia has noted that due process and habeas corpus are related/intertwined:

    “To make imprisonment lawful, it must either be, by process from the courts of judicature, or by warrant from some legal officer, having authority to commit to prison; which warrant must be in writing, under the hand and seal of the magistrate, and express the causes of the commitment, in order to be examined into (if necessary) upon a habeas corpus. If there be no cause expressed, the gaoler is not bound to detain the prisoner. For the law judges in this respect, … that it is unreasonable to send a prisoner, and not to signify withal the crimes alleged against him.” 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 132–133 (1765) (hereinafter Blackstone).

    These words were well known to the Founders. Hamilton quoted from this very passage in The Federalist No. 84, p. 444 (G. Carey & J. McClellan eds. 2001). The two ideas central to Blackstone’s understanding—due process as the right secured, and habeas corpus as the instrument by which due process could be insisted upon by a citizen illegally imprisoned—found expression in the Constitution’s Due Process and Suspension Clauses. See Amdt. 5; Art. I, §9, cl. 2.

    There have been long battles back and forth on FreeRepublic about whether Chief Justice John Marshall's following statement from his majority opinion in Ex Parte Bollman and Swartwout was dicta or not:

    If at any time, the public safety should require the suspension of the powers vested by this act in the courts of the United States, it is for the legislature to say so. That question depends on political considerations, on which the legislature is to decide; until the legislative will be expressed, this court can only see its duty, and must obey the laws."

    Taney cited that quote of Marshall's in Ex Parte Merryman. Lincoln never challenged the Ex Parte Merryman order issued by the Chief Justice, so it remained a valid court order even though Lincoln's troops later arrested another Maryland judge in his courtroom for trying to follow Taney's order and placed yet another judge under house arrest to prevent him from ruling on a habeas corpus case.

    If I may and though it is not related to your dicta comment, I'll repost something below that former poster nolu chan once posted. It was on a thread that was later pulled because it eventually became a flame war. Many good history-filled posts have been lost because an entire thread was pulled rather than just suspending the flamers. The following is nulu's lengthy history-filled excerpt from "Prisoner of State" (1863) by Dennis A. Mahony that provides a background about where the authority to suspend the privilege of the writ resides.

    OTHER AUTHORITIES AND PROOFS TO SHOW THAT THE RIGHTFUL POWER IS NOT IN THE PRESIDENT TO SUSPEND THE PRIVILEGES OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, OR TO ARREST A CITIZEN OTHERWISE THAN AS THE LAWS PRESCRIBE.

    Under ordinary circumstances it would not be necessary to add any weight to the decision of the Chief Justice of the United States in a question between him and Abraham Lincoln involving a principle of constitutional law, but as unfortunately the American public mind is as much if not more affected in these times by the mere acts of will of the President as it is by the judgment of a learned, enlightened and illustrious jurist, I have thought it becoming the object in view to add the weight of historical facts, and the opinions of other eminent jurists, to the decision of Judge Taney.

    English authorities, legal and historical, Blackstone and Hallam have been quoted by the Chief Justice in support of his decision. Other British authorities might be cited confirming the same views and doctrines, but I will content myself with stating a fact which is in itself proof incontrovertible that even in Great Britain where the prerogatives of the crown are certainly more extensive in relation to the liberties of the subject than the Constitutional authority of the President is over citizens of the United States, it is not conceded to be the right of the crown to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, and during the long period of time intervening between the dethronement and execution of Charles the First and the present day, no British monarch has dared to assume the prerogative of power which has been arrogantly and defiantly seized and exercised by Abraham Lincoln and subordinates under his command. During the period referred to England and Ireland were convulsed on several occasions with insurrections and rebellion; yet it was only when Parliament thought it proper to be done that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus was suspended. This fact is both significant of the sacred regard entertained both in the public mind of Great Britain for the sanctity of private rights, and of the respect which the British crown is obliged to pay to these constitutionally recognized rights of British subjects.

    The history of the Writ of habeas corpus in our own country dates properly for its origin in the Convention which formed the Constitution of the United States.

    This Convention met in May, 1787, in Philadelphia. On the 29th of May, Mr. Charles Pinckney, of South Carolina, laid before the House a draft of a plan of a Federal Constitution, the VIth Article of which provided, "The Legislature of the United States shall pass no law on the subject of religion, nor touching or abridging the liberty of the press; nor shall the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus ever be suspended, except in the case of rebellion or invasion."

    On the 6th of August the Committee of Detail, consisting of Rutledge, Randolph, Gorham, Ellsworth, and Wilson, reported a draft of a Constitution, but it contained no provision on the subject of the writ of habeas corpus.

    On the 20th of August Mr. Pinckney submitted to the House, in order to be referred to the Committee of Detail, the following proposition, among others: "The privileges and benefits of the writ of habeas corpus shall be enjoyed in this Government in the most expeditious and ample manner, and shall not be suspended by the Legislature, except upon the most urgent and pressing occasions, and for a limited time, not exceeding ______ months."

    On the 28th of the same month, "Mr. Pinckney, urging the propriety of securing the benefit of the habeas corpus in the most ample manner, moved that it should not be suspended but on the most urgent occasions, and then only for a limited time, not exceeding twelve months."

    "Mr. Rutledge was for declaring the habeas corpus inviolate. He did not conceive that a suspension could ever be necessary at the same time through all the States."

    "Mr. Gouverneur Morris moved that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus should not be suspended, unless when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it."

    "Mr. Wilson doubted whether in any case a suspension could be necessary, as the discretion now exists with judges in most important cases to keep in gaol, or admit to bail."

    "The first part of Mr. Gouverneur Morris's motion, to the word 'unless,' was agreed to nem. con. On the remaining part the vote stood: Aye -- New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia -- 7. Nay -- North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia -- 3." (Elliott's Debates, Vol. V., pp. 131, 376, 445, 484.)

    It will be seen from this original draft of the proposition to incorporate the habeas corpus clause in the Constitution that it was manifestly the design to restrain the Federal Legislature from suspending the privileges of the writ except in the prescribed contingency. There was no thought that the Executive would either possess that right by virtue of office or by any implication whatever, and therefore no reference was thought to be necessary to the executive in this connection. Without this qualified restraint proposed by Mr. Pinckney upon the power of the Legislature, it would perhaps be inferred that as Congress would hold nearly the same relation as the law-making power in the United States that Parliament held to Great Britain, Congress, unless restricted by constitutional inhibition, might assume to exercise the same power in the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, and in passing laws in relation to the religious worship. -- And as there is no restraint upon the British Parliament nor contingency prescribed to it when it may or may not suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, it was obviously Mr. Pinckney's object to restrain Congress from suspending the privilege of this great writ of right at its own discretion. Hence the restriction on its power to the contingency of rebellion or invasion.

    But some sophist might say just as Mr. Lincoln has assumed the right to do, this restriction upon the power of the Legislature only proves the greater power in the President, for the power must be lodged somewhere. According to this theory, which is not merely a theory now-a-days, any power of government withheld from Congress is by implication vested in the President, so, it should be concluded, according to this, that whenever the Constitution says Congress shall not do a thing the President has a right to do the act inhibited; and where Congress is permitted to do an act under certain prescribed contingencies, the President may act in such cases, his own discretion only being the rule and limit of his power.

    Absurd as this theory is to common sense, it is nevertheless made the rule of action by Mr. Lincoln in his administration of the Federal Government. Legislative powers denied by the Constitution to the Legislative Department are assumed by him as if it were a matter of course that what the Constitution withheld from Congress it vested in the President. Still more absurd is Mr. Lincoln's assumption that the power not vested in him as President belongs to him by virtue of his being Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, a position which he holds only by virtue of his being the President, an ex-officio position which derives no power or authority from any other source than the Constitution of the United States and through no other means than that of the Presidency. But as Mr. Lincoln is more used to illustrations than he is to arguments to guide or influence his actions, he might better appreciate the force of an attempt to hold himself up by the seat of his breeches, an experiment it is suggested to him to make, than of any argument, however conclusive in reason or law which might be made for him from common sense, historical facts and judicial authority to prove to him the absurdity of the pretensions he makes to a right of Betting aside the Constitution, and existing nevertheless as President of the United States. He forgets that the act of his which destroys the Constitution puts him out of existence as Chief Magistrate of this Republic, and that if he continues in power after his destruction of the Constitution and his subversion of the government, he does so only as an usurper. But let us continue our historical proofs. I quote from Bullitt's compilation of such facts.

    In the Massachusetts Convention, called to determine whether the Constitution should be ratified or not, the habeas corpus clause being under consideration on the 26th of January, 1788, "Dr. Taylor asked why this darling privilege was not expressed in the same manner as in the Constitution of Massachusetts? ...... He remarked on the difference of expression, and asked why the time was not limited?

    "Judge Dana said: The answer in part to the honorable gentleman must be that the same men did not make both Constitutions; that he did not see the necessity or great benefit of limiting the time, supposing it had been as in our Constitution, 'not exceeding twelve months;' yet, as our Legislature can, so might Congress continue the suspension of the writ from year to year. The safest and best restriction, therefore, arises from the nature of the cases in which Congress are authorized to exercise that power at all, namely, in those of rebellion or invasion. These are clear and certain terms, facts of public notoriety; and whenever these shall cease to exist, the suspension of the writ must necessarily cease also. He thought the citizen had a better security for his privilege of the writ of habeas corpus under the Federal than under the State Constitution for our Legislature may suspend the writ as often as they judge, 'the most urgent and pressing occasions' call for it.

    "Judge Sumner said, that this was a restriction on 'Congress, that the writ of habeas corpus should not be suspended, except in cases of rebellion or invasion. The learned Judge then explained the nature of the writ. ...... The privilege, he said, is essential to freedom, and, therefore, the power to suspend it is restricted. On the other hand the State, he said, might be involved in danger; the worst enemy may lay plans to destroy us, and so artfully as to prevent any evidence against him, and might ruin the country, without the power to suspend the writ was thus given. Congress have only power to suspend the privilege to persons committed by their authority. A person committed under the authority of the States will still have a right to the writ' " (2d Elliott's Debates, 108.)

    In the act of ratification by the Convention of New York is this remarkable clause, among others, explanatory of their understanding of the Constitution: "That every person restrained of his liberty is entitled to an inquiry into the lawfulness of such restraint, and to a removal thereof, if unlawful; and that such inquiry and removal ought not to be denied or delayed, except when, on account of public danger, the Congress shall suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. *

    "Under these impressions, and declaring that the rights aforesaid cannot be abridged or violated, and that the explanations aforesaid are consistent with the said Constitution,.... we, the said delegates, in the name and on behalf of the people of the State of New York, do by these presents assent to and ratify the said Constitution." (Supplement to the Journal of the Federal Convention, published in Boston in 1819, pp. 428 and 431.)

    The Convention of Rhode Island also ratified the Constitution with certain explanatory declarations; among them is the following:

    "VII. That all power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by any authority, without the consent of the representatives of the people in the Legislature, is injurious to their rights, and ought not to be exercised." (Idem, p. 455.)

    In the debate in the Virginia Convention, Mr. Patrick Henry, in speaking of the 9th section, used this language:

    "The design of the negative expressions in this section is to prescribe limits beyond which the powers of Congress shall not go....... The first prohibition is, that the privilege of the writ of ha-beas corpus shall not be suspended, but when, in case of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it. It results clearly that, if it had not said so, they could suspend it in all cases whatsoever.... (Elliot's Deb., Vol. III, p. 461.) See also remarks of Gov. Randolph, quoted ante, p. 9.

    These were the declarations in four Conventions called for the ratification of the Constitution; and in that of New York, it will be observed, that it is expressly set forth, in their act of ratification, that the power of suspension is in Congress.

    The first occasion for the consideration of the question of the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus after the Federal Government went into operation, arose in consequence of Burr's conspiracy. -- Mr. Jefferson was then President, and it is well known was not a personal friend of Burr. It ought to be presumed that Mr. Jefferson knew as much as Mr. Lincoln does of the intention, objects and designs of the framers of the Constitution, and whether he, as President, was invested by the Constitution or otherwise with, the power assumed by Mr. Lincoln. Mr. Jefferson not only recognized Congress as the depositary of this power, but requested that body to exercise it so that he might be better able to suppress the impending insurrection. The Senate passed the bill, "An act to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus for a limited time in certain cases." The vote on the passage of this bill in the Senate appears to have been unanimous. In the House the bill was rejected, so jealous was this body of the rights of the American people. --

    The following extracts from the debates on the question, as collated by Mr. Bullitt in his Review of Binney's pamphlet on the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, will show that there was no question then as to where the power was vested to suspend tin privilege of this act.

    Mr. Burwell said, "If that be the case, upon what ground shall we suspend the writ of habeas corpus? ..... Nothing but the most imperious necessity would excuse us (i. e. Congress,) in confiding to the Executive, or any person under him, the power of seizing and confining a citizen, upon bare suspicion, for three months, without responsibility for the abuse of such unlimited discretion." ...

    Mr. Elliott said, "We can suspend the writ of habeas corpus only in a case of extreme emergency. ...... But we shall be told that the Constitution has contemplated cases of this kind, and, in reference to them, invested us with unlimited discretion. When any gentleman shall advance such a position, we shall meet him upon that ground, and put the point at issue."

    Mr. Eppes said, "By this bill we are called on to exercise one of the most important powers vested in Congress by the Constitution of the United States....... The words of the Constitution are, 'The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.' The wording of this clause of the Constitution deserves peculiar attention. It is not in every case of invasion, nor in every case of rebellion, that the exercise of this power by Congress can be justified under the words of the Constitution. ...... The Constitution, however, having vested this power in Congress, and a branch of the Legislature having thought its exercise necessary, it remains for us to inquire, whether the present situation of our country authorizes, on our part, a resort to this extraordinary measure."

    Mr. Varnum said, " I consider the country, in a degree, in a state of insecurity; and if so, the power is vested in Congress, under the Constitution, to suspend the writ of habeas corpus ......

    Mr. Smilie said, "A suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is, in all respects, equivalent to repealing that essential part of the Constitution which secures that principle which has been called the palladium of 'personal liberty.' If we recur to England, we shall find that the writ of habeas corpus in that country has been frequently suspended. But under what circumstances?. ...... We have taken from the statute of this country (England) this most valuable part of our Constitution. The Convention who framed that instrument, believing that there might be cases when it would be necessary to vest a discretionary power in the Executive, have constituted the Legislature the judges of this necessity; and the only question to be determined now is, does this necessity exist?" (3d vol. Benton's Deb., 504-514.) On the 17th of February, 1807, the House of Representatives proceeded to consider the motion of Mr. Broom, to wit: "Resolved, that it is expedient to make further provision by law for securing the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus to persons in custody, under or by color of the authority of the United States."

    Mr. Broom said, "This privilege of the writ of habeas corpus has been deemed so important that by the ninth section of the first Article of the Constitution it is declared that it shall not be suspended, unless when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.' Such is the value of this privilege that even the highest legislative body of the union -- the legitimate representatives of the nation -- are not intrusted with the guardianship of it, or suffered to lay their hands upon it, unless when, in cases of extreme danger, the public safety shall make it necessary. This constitutional provision was intended only as a check upon the power of Congress in abridging the privilege, but was never intended to prevent them from intrenching it around with sound and wholesome laws; on the contrary, it was expected that Congress were prohibited from impairing at their pleasure this privilege, -- that they would regard it as of high importance, and, by coercive laws, insure its operation."

    Mr. Bidwell said, "The Constitution, by restricting the Legislature from suspending it, except when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require a suspension, had recognized it as a writ of right, and our statutes had authorized certain courts and magistrates to grant it."

    Mr. G. W. Campbell said, "This provision evidently relates to Congress, and was intended to prevent that body from suspending by law the Writ of habeas corpus, except in the cases stated, and has no relation whatever to the act of an individual in refusing to obey the writ, -- such refusal or disobedience would not certainly suspend the privilege of that Writ, and must be considered in the same point of view as the. violation of any other public law made to protect the liberty of the citizen."

    Mr. Holland said, "But, sir, so far as respects the habeas corpus, the suspension of it applies to the Legislature, and not to persons. The Constitution says, it shall not be suspended but in case of rebellion, or when the public safety requires it. This prohibition manifestly applies to the Legislature, and not to persons in their individual capacity."

    Mr. J. Randolph said, "The Writ of habeas corpus is the only Writ sanctioned by the Constitution. It is guarded from every approach, except by the two Houses of Congress." (3d vol. Benton's Debates, pp. 520-540.)

    In 1842, in the debate on the bill to idemnify Gen. Jackson for the fine imposed on him by Judge Hall, at New Orleans, Mr. Bayard said, "Congress may indeed suspend the privilege of the Writ of ha¬beas corpus, but cannot declare martial law to be the law of the United States, or any part of them...... The Constitution says, Congress shall have power to declare war, to raise armies, to provide a navy, to provide arms and munitions of war, and to make rules for the government of the land and naval forces. On these limited and specific powers it has been inferred that Congress may declare martial law. To avoid this very conclusion there is an express provision in the very next section, among the restrictions on the powers of Congress, declaring that the remedy of the Writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless in cases of rebellion or invasion All Congress can do, even in cases of rebellion or invasion, is to suspend the privilege of the Writ of habeas corpus; and that can be done by Congress only -- not by an officer of the Government -- without its authority." (Vol. XIV Benton's Debates, pp. 627.)

    On January 14, 1843, the same subject was discussed in the House of Representatives.

    Mr. Hunt said (after quoting the ninth section of the first Article of the Constitution, which provides that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it), "Who was to be the judge of that necessity? Was it the President of the United States, or any subordinate officer in command? No; it was the Legislature of the country that was the judge, and the only judge of that necessity. He supported the position by citing the practice of Mr. Jefferson, who, in 1807, as President of the United States, applied to Congress for a temporary suspension of the writ of habeas corpus for three months; which, however, was refused by the House of Representatives, where the bill was defeated, which had passed the Senate for that purpose."

    In the House of Representatives, in the debate on the bill to indemnify General Jackson, January 2, 1844, Mr. Barnard said, " The Constitution gave Congress authority to pass laws for the regulation of the army and navy of the United States, and under that, Congress have passed laws for the government of the army and navy and the militia. That code was applicable to the officers and soldiers, and to the militia, when in service; but it was not applicable to any other human being. Congress itself could not proclaim martial law. It might suspend the habeas corpus act, but it could not suspend the Constitution. A proclamation of martial law by the Congress of the United States would, of itself, be a violation of the Constitution." (Vol. XIV. Benton's Debates, p. 657.)

    In an opinion delivered by Mr. Attorney-General Cushing, upon the subject of martial law, and the suspension of the habeas corpus, in February, 1857, growing out of a proclamation of martial law by the Governor of Washington Territory, in order to suspend the habeas corpus, this language is used : "The opinion is expressed by commentators on the Constitution, that the right to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, and also that of judging when the exigency has arisen, belongs exclusively to Congress.

    It may be assumed, as a general doctrine of constitutional jurisprudence in all the United States, that the power to suspend laws, whether those granting the writ of habeas corpus, or any other, is vested exclusively in the Legislature of the particular State." (Opinions of Attorneys-General, Vol. VIII, p. 365.)

    So much for historical proofs embracing also the opinions of the statesmen, patriots and jurists of the better days of the Republic.

    Judge Taney having already quoted the opinion of his illustrious predecessor, Chief Justice Marshal, I shall not repeat the opinion of that eminent jurist as given in the case, ex-parte Bollman and Swartwout, but refer the reader to it as quoted by Judge Taney. I will only add one quotation from Judge Story, who in his commentaries on the Constitution, says: Sec. 1336, "Hitherto, no suspension of the writ has been authorized by Congress since the establishment of the Constitution. It would seem, as the power is given to Congress to suspend the writ of habeas corpus in case of rebellion or invasion, that the right to judge whether the exigency had arisen, must exclusively belong to that body."

    To the understanding and judgment of the reader, these facts, historical proofs, decisions of illustrious judges, and opinions of eminent jurists are committed in contrast with the act of will of Abraham Lincoln; and unless the interested motive of the partisan has usurped the place in the American mind which was once occupied by patriotism, it will not be in vain for our country's well being that history, common sense and the judgment of our most illustrious ancestors have been cited to prove how utterly absurd are the pretensions to power of Abraham Lincoln, how unwarrantable has been his assumptions of right to set aside the Constitution, to subvert the government, and to deprive individual citizens of their rights of person; and how dangerous to liberty it is to permit these assumptions of power to pass unrebuked, and to be exercised unrestrained.

    -------

    * No proof can be more conclusive than this is as to the understanding and intention of the framers of the Constitution. This action of the Convention is in itself a complete corroboration of the argument under consideration. No ingenuity can mystify it. No controversial skill can weaken or destroy its force.

    -------

    SOURCE: Dennis A. Mahony, Prisoner of State, (1863), pp. 75-88.
  • Lincoln assassinated

    04/16/2015 8:42:02 AM PDT · 274 of 334
    rustbucket to DoodleDawg
    But never the Supreme Court. As Chief Justice Rehnquist noted in 1996: "The provision of the Constitution dealing with habeas corpus is found in Article I, dealing with the legislative power vested in Congress, and provides that the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless in time of war or rebellion the public safety shall require it. The question of whether only Congress may suspend it has never been authoritatively answered to this day, but the Lincoln Administration proceeded to arrest and detain persons suspected of disloyal activities."

    Rehnquist must have changed his mind by 2004.

    ...We have long since made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation's citizens. Whatever power the United States Constitution envisions for the Executive in its exchanges with other nations or with enemy organizations in times of conflict, it most assuredly envisions a role for all three branches when individual liberties are at stake. Likewise, we have made clear that, unless Congress acts to suspend it, the Great Writ of habeas corpus allows the Judicial Branch to play a necessary role in maintaining this delicate balance of governance, serving as an important judicial check on the Executive's discretion in the realm of detentions. See INS v. St. Cyr, ("At its historical core, the writ of habeas corpus has served as a means of reviewing the legality of Executive detention, and it is in that context that its protections have been strongest"). Thus, while we do not question that our due process assessment must pay keen attention to the particular burdens faced by the Executive in the context of military action, it would turn our system of checks and balances on its head to suggest that a citizen could not make his way to court with a challenge to the factual basis for his detention by his government, simply because the Executive opposes making available such a challenge. Absent suspension of the writ by Congress, a citizen detained as an enemy combatant is entitled to this process." - O'Connor, joined by Kennedy, Bryer, and Rehnquist for the majority in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004)
  • Lincoln assassinated

    04/15/2015 10:55:18 PM PDT · 271 of 334
    rustbucket to Bubba Ho-Tep; ek_hornbeck
    You do know that the Constitution specifically allows for suspension of habeas, and that congress subsequently confirmed Lincoln's actions, right?

    Yes, of course, but as Hamilton and Jay said above, habeas corpus may not be suspended except by Congress. Many other founders, ratifiers, the Supreme Court, a previous president, etc., held the same view, as you no doubt know.

    Congress does not have the authority after the fact to approve an unconstitutional action of a president. They indemnified Lincoln for his actions, but what he did was unconstitutional. A couple of years after Chief Justice Taney's valid legal order (Ex Parte Merryman) against Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus (which Lincoln ignored), Congress authorized Lincoln to suspend habeas corpus in the last years of the war. If Lincoln had the constitutional power to suspend habeas corpus, why did Congress indemnify his 1861 actions and later authorize him to suspend habeas corpus for those last years.

    As the Supreme Court later said in Ex Parte Milligan in a unanimous decision delivered by Lincoln's good friend (and executor of his estate, I believe), Justice Davis:

    The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times and under all circumstances. No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government." (Justice Davis, ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2, (1866))

    From Taney's Ex Parte Merryman order:

    The constitution provides, as I have before said, that 'no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.' It declares that 'the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.' It provides that the party accused shall be entitled to a speedy trial in a court of justice.

    These great and fundamental laws, which congress itself could not suspend, have been disregarded and suspended, like the writ of habeas corpus, by a military order, supported by force of arms. Such is the case now before me, and I can only say that if the authority which the constitution has confided to the judiciary department and judicial officers, may thus, upon any pretext or under any circumstances, be usurped by the military power, at its discretion, the people of the United States are no longer living under a government of laws, but every citizen holds life, liberty and property at the will and pleasure of the army officer in whose military district he may happen to be found.
  • Lincoln assassinated

    04/14/2015 1:02:10 PM PDT · 156 of 334
    rustbucket to Conscience of a Conservative; DiogenesLamp; StoneWall Brigade
    [DiagenesLamp as quoted by Conscience of a Conservative]: I don't particularly care what a people's reasons are for wanting to leave. The Declaration of Independence tells me they can leave for whatever reason suits them.

    Basically that's what the Constitution means too according to Alexander Hamilton and John Jay (future first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court), two of the three authors of the Federalist Papers that explained what the Constitution meant. Here is what they and the New York Ratification Convention voted for, one of the clearest statements of original intent [my bold emphasis below]:

    WE the Delegates of the People of the State of New York, duly elected and Met in Convention, having maturely considered the Constitution for the United States of America, agreed to on the seventeenth day of September, in the year One thousand Seven hundred and Eighty seven, by the Convention then assembled at Philadelphia in the Common-wealth of Pennsylvania (a Copy whereof precedes these presents) and having also seriously and deliberately considered the present situation of the United States, Do declare and make known.

    ... That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; ...

    ... Under these impressions and declaring that the rights aforesaid cannot be abridged or violated, and that the Explanations aforesaid are consistent with the said Constitution, And in confidence that the Amendments which shall have been proposed to the said Constitution will receive an early and mature Consideration: We the said Delegates, in the Name and in the behalf of the People of the State of New York Do by these presents Assent to and Ratify the said Constitution.

    Hamilton and Jay and the other New York Ratifiers also included among the rights they listed in their ratification document:

    That the People have an equal, natural and unalienable right, freely and peaceably to Exercise their Religion according to the dictates of Conscience, and that no Religious Sect or Society ought to be favoured or established by Law in preference of others.

    That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State;

    That every Person restrained of his Liberty is entitled to an enquiry into the lawfulness of such restraint, and to a removal thereof if unlawful, and that such enquiry and removal ought not to be denied or delayed, except when on account of Public Danger the Congress shall suspend the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus.

    As far as I know, none of the other states objected to the New York Ratification.

  • Confederate monument will include 32 rebel flags

    04/08/2015 1:16:08 PM PDT · 23 of 23
    rustbucket to rockrr
    Thanks, I didn't know that. Your link contained information about how and when those markers came into being because of the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC).

    The UDC also created and gave out the Southern Cross of Honor (Link). I do have one of those that was given to one of my Confederate veteran ancestors.

  • Confederate monument will include 32 rebel flags

    04/07/2015 8:21:42 PM PDT · 19 of 23
    rustbucket to StoneWall Brigade
    That is not a very wise place to put that monument.

    I have a vague memory of seeing one of those Jefferson Davis Highway markers in Orange at the Texas Welcome Center on I-10 at the border with Louisiana. There are a number of those markers throughout the state. See Jefferson Davis Highway Markers.

    The first one of those markers I ever saw was the one in the center of the town of Fort Davis, Texas. Just outside of the town is the actual fort, a National Historic Site named Fort Davis for Jefferson Davis who was US Secretary of War when the fort was established in 1854.

    I visited the bookstore in the fort once. They had a large number of books about Buffalo Soldiers, but not one book about Jefferson Davis despite the fact that the fort was named for him and it was located in the Davis Mountains in Jeff Davis County. That was National Park Service political correctness at work, I suppose. I gave the clerk a hard time about it.

  • The Romance of the Confederacy

    03/30/2015 6:03:42 PM PDT · 124 of 124
    rustbucket to rockrr
    Kinda makes you wonder what he wrote in his editorials to fire up so many locals...

    Here you go, rockrr. My information on what the editor of the destroyed Bangor, Maine paper said that provoked the crowd comes from the book, "Lincoln and the Press" by Robert S. Harper, copyright 1951. It is a really thorough and excellent book, by the way. It's long been out of print, but I found a copy for sale some years ago. The author gave two examples of what the paper editor had said:

    "As war has been determined upon by President Lincoln and his Cabinet to subdue the South, these states will ward off the blow as best they can."

    That is basically what a lot of newspapers throughout the nation had said after Lincoln's first inaugural speech. You may remember my old thread about newspaper responses to that inaugural speech. Every two or three years, I have provided a link to that old thread if the thread discussion merited it. See the old thread: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1183054/posts

    Does the evidence support what the editor said above? As you may remember, I have posted my own thoughts about that in the past. My answer was a resounding yes. Here are links to two long posts of mine putting together what Lincoln did to provoke war and what some of the principal Union people involved said his actions meant: Post 54 and Post 167.

    Here is another quote that the editor of the destroyed newspaper had printed:

    "He (Jefferson Davis) is one of the very, very few gigantic minds which adorn the pages of history of whom it may be said: 'Desperate courage makes one a majority.' "

    If the good folk of Bangor didn't like what the paper said, they should have stopped buying the paper instead of destroying it.

    Say what you will about Jefferson Davis (he has his good points and bad points), he did do some good things for the United States Army as Secretary of War, in particular the creation of the Second US Cavalry. You might read the book, "Jeff Davis's Own" by James R. Arnold about that. From the book back cover:

    "Established by Secretary of War Jefferson Davis, the Second and its Officers were assigned -- disregarding Army tradition -- on the basis of merit and not seniority. Davis' innovation proved sound. Half of the full generals in Davis;s Confederate army had seved with the Second Cavalry prior to the outbreak of the Civil War."

    "Led by mean such as Robert E. Lee (in his first independent command), John Bell Hood, and George Thomas, the troopers of the Second Cavalry schooled themselves in the tactics and strategies of mobile desert warfare, tutored by a skilled and tireless adversary."

    Actially the Second Cavalry learned a lot from the Texas Rangers who had been fighting the Indians for many years.

    At one point, Albert Sydney Johnston was in command of the Department of Texas. Robert E. Lee was second in command. When Johnston was ordered to Washington, Lee became regimental commander. After three months in command, his father-in-law died, and Lee took a leave of absence to handle family affairs in Virginia. George Thomas then became regimental commander. Other officers in the Second included Kirby Smith, Fitzhugh Lee, and Earl Van Dorn.

    Davis promoted the idea of bringing camels to Texas. They proved much more tolerant of the Texas conditions than horses or mules, but the Civil War later caused the dispersal of the camels into the wilderness and the end of the camel experiment.

  • The Romance of the Confederacy

    03/30/2015 12:38:37 PM PDT · 122 of 124
    rustbucket to rockrr

    I’m headed out the door. When I get back in a couple of hours, I’ll post what I know about what the editor said in the paper (my info comes from one of the books I cited above).

  • The Romance of the Confederacy

    03/30/2015 8:57:59 AM PDT · 120 of 124
    rustbucket to DoodleDawg; StoneWall Brigade; yefragetuwrabrumuy
    Years ago, I found about 100 cases of suppression of newspapers and arrests of editors, publishers, and reporters by Lincoln, his generals, postmasters suppressing shipment of certain papers by mail or rail, northern troops, and mobs of Northerner civilians. My sources were old wartime newspapers and books like "Blue & Gray in Black & White" by Brayton Harris, "Lincoln's Wrath" (subtitle: Fierce Mobs, Brilliant Scoundrels and a President's Mission to Destroy the Press) by Jeffrey Manber and Neil Dahstrom, "Lincoln and the Press" by Robert S. Harper, and Appleton's "Annual Cyclopaedia of Important Events" for the various war years. The most thorough of them all is "Lincoln and the Press."

    Many of the newspapers were attacked or suppressed by Northern mobs and in some cases Northern troops. The problem in counting how many newspapers were destroyed, suppressed, or bullied into submission by arrests ultimately becomes how do you count things like the blockage by Union Army order of all Democrat newspapers from coming into a state prior to an election. How many Democratic papers might that have been? There were Democratic papers throughout the North.

    Here is one chilling account I found in the old Brooklyn Eagle, the largest evening newspaper in the Country during the war [Source: Brooklyn Eagle, August 16, 1861]:

    Freedom of the Press


    Mr. Marcellus Emory, editor of the Bangor Democrat, published an account of the outrage on his paper, in the Portland Argus. Being already apprised of the purpose to attack his office, he says:

    I caused a written notice to be served on the mayor by two of our prominent and leading citizens, informing him of the fact that my office and property were threatened with destruction by a mob, and claiming and demanding of him protection for them. In the notice I tendered him for that purpose the services of able bodied men to the number two hundred. The mayor made neither response nor reply to this notice, nor did he give to the citizens by whom the notice was served, or to me, or to any of my friends the least assurance or encouragement that he would attempt to give the protection claimed and demanded.

    On Saturday morning a call appeared in the Whig and Courier for a “Union” Meeting in Norombega Hall, to be holden that evening. I was not present, but am credibly informed that Wm. H. McCrillis, representative to the Legislature from this city and Charles S. Crosby, County Attorney, made inflammatory speeches. And here it should be said, to the honor of Henry E. Prentiss, Esq., that he attempted to make a speech opposing the effort there being made to create a mob spirit, but his voice was powerless amidst a tempest of hisses. The meeting accomplished the object for which it was designed by those who originated it.

    On Saturday and Sunday nights it became evident that my property was to receive no protection from the Mayor. I took such precautions as were necessary for its security. To-day I proceeded as usual on Mondays to print and mail my issues for one week. During the forenoon there were no indications, that I saw, of mob violence. I left my editorial room about 12:25, to go to my dinner, my boarding place being about a half of a mile distant. Whilst eating, the fire bells were rung. After finishing my meal, I set out to return to my office. Soon after I met two gentlemen in a buggy, who informed me that my office had just been sacked, and all my property thrown into the street. Proceeding directly forward, on coming out of Central street, I saw the work of destruction, and there too, I saw the first mob that had ever met my eyes. West Market Square and surroundings were filled with nearly two thousand people. In the middle of the Square was a large fire, on which the multitude were engaged in heaping my tables, stands, cases and other material. The Wheelwright and Clark blacks were surrounded with the wreck of what had, an hour before, constituted one of the largest and finest printing offices in the State.

    I made my way through the crowd to the stairway, which I found filled with the mob. They made no resistance to my ascending the long stairway. I found my office door besieged by a large number of persons armed with crowbars and like implements. As I approached the door they fell back. Whilst feeling for my key, one of their leaders, a man who has been honored with a position on our city police, demanded that I should instantly open the door. I then turned round and faced the mob, telling them that that office was rightfully under my control, but that if they saw fit to resort to violence, they could probably overpower me. I was unarmed. Before opening the door I told them that my object was to secure my account books, notes, bills, and private papers, and that I should give them the feeble protection in my power. I then opened the door and set about my business, the mob following me in, and seizing indiscriminately whatever they could lay their hands on, and throwing it out of the windows into the street. The work of destruction was soon complete. I then left the office, the mob following me down the stairs. As I reached the sidewalk, there arose from the infuriated mob, “Hang him! Tar and feather him! Kill him!” It was then felt, for the first time, how little there is in the terrors and threats of a mob for him who is conscious of having discharged his duty to the public and himself. The mad crowd were thirsty for the blood of one who had been long and incessantly toiling to save them from the fetters that are being forged for their free limbs. His works may yet bear their fruits.

    As I made my way through the dense crowd, friend after friend gathered around me for my protection. Their words of sympathy sank deep into my soul, whilst the demonic cries for my blood fell unheeded on my ears. But one circumstance disturbed my equanimity, and that was like the sting of an adder. When I was beyond danger and among friends, the Mayor, who, regardless of his oath of office, would give me no protection for my property, who made no attempt to disperse the mob, who did not even order the reading of the riot act, who did not even lift a finger to preserve the peace of the city, although days and hours before warned of the threatened attack – when I was beyond danger, he suddenly conceived an anxiety for my personal safety, and suggested that I had better hurry away.

    Thus hath the freedom of the press been stricken down here in Maine, not from any patriotic impulse, but through the wicked instigation of a band of politicians who would willingly subvert all law and order for the maintenance of a mere party dogma.

    Though anarchy seems to be coming down upon our unhappy country like night, yet I do not despair. I still believe there is yet virtue and intelligence enough in the people to maintain their liberties and protect a free press, which is their best guardian.

    By this act of mob violence my all, the result of four years of unremitting toil, has been swept away; but I still have health, strength and youth, and a heart to struggle on in defense of the people’s rights.
  • Chief Justice John Roberts, who saved Obamacare in 2012, stays quiet this time

    03/04/2015 2:45:38 PM PST · 42 of 55
    rustbucket to TangledUpInBlue
    I analyze laws for a living. Absent ambiguity, there are very few instances when "legislative intent" is presumed to trump the actual letter of the law.

    I'm no lawyer, but I would think the rule of evidence, res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself), should apply to the phrase "through an exchange established by the state."

    Gruber said that the law was intentionally written the way it reads in order to pressure the states to open exchanges. It didn't work. Most states looked at the costs involved and chose for whatever reasons not to open exchanges. If the court sides with the plaintiffs that state means state and not federal government, then it is up to Congress to rewrite the law and the president to sign it if they choose to do so. The Supreme Court, in my view, does not have the authority to rewrite a plainly written law. Neither does the president acting by himself.

  • Dogs Don't Remember

    03/02/2015 1:52:58 PM PST · 77 of 131
    rustbucket to loungitude

    A beagle we used to have would let us know that he wanted to go out. He would stand at the front door waiting. Once when it was raining heavily, I opened the front door for him. He took one look then ran to the back door. There was logic in his thinking, but he didn’t understand that rain would naturally be going on in both places.

  • Feds raid Texas secessionist meeting

    02/25/2015 4:07:17 PM PST · 41 of 57
    rustbucket to StoneWall Brigade

    No. I think they got in trouble with the law in an armed confrontation in West Texas years ago. They seemed like kooks.

  • What Amadeus gets wrong

    02/24/2015 7:49:11 PM PST · 69 of 77
    rustbucket to Borges

    About 25 years ago I traced my wife’s piano teachers, their teachers, their teachers’ teachers, and so on. Interestingly, I found that Mozart’s youngest child (Franz Xaver Wolfgang Mozart, also called Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Junior) was taught piano by Salieri. Junior was also taught by Johann Nepomuk Hummel, a student of Mozart’s who for a time lived in the Mozart home. If there indeed was a bitter, serious rivalry between Mozart and Salieri or if there were widespread rumors that Salieri murdered Mozart, I doubt if Mozart’s wife would have allowed little Wolfie to have been taught by Salieri.

    Whatever the quality of the music he composed, As Court Composer in Vienna Salieri was apparently quite the prestigious teacher for aspiring musicians. Musicians he taught included Schubert, Beethoven, Liszt, Hummel, and Moscheles.

  • With Amnesty Betrayal, Republicans Reach For Whig-Dom

    12/24/2014 7:24:18 AM PST · 15 of 18
    rustbucket to massmike
    I had recommended to my own congressman that he vote against the bill and he did. The Omnibus bill wasn't everything we wanted, but there were some good things in the bill. Here are links to information sent out by Representative Culberson of Texas who voted for the bill:

    Link 1 that lists a lot of things conservatives got into the bill

    Link 2 that addresses Amnesty, illegal alien children, and ObamaCare

  • `Flame and Blame` uncovers Sherman's strategy of war on civilians

    12/19/2014 8:52:49 PM PST · 204 of 204
    rustbucket to BroJoeK
    We stood by our cotton bales and didn't say a thing

    I'd forgotten that [Link].

    Of course, those weren't movable, but didn't somebody else put some on wheels...?

    The Federals did put cotton bales on wheels in Vicksburg, but the Confederates succeeded in setting the bales on fire with incendiary bullets. See: [Link 2].

  • `Flame and Blame` uncovers Sherman's strategy of war on civilians

    12/19/2014 2:00:19 PM PST · 202 of 204
    rustbucket to central_va
    General Early contravened it when he burned the Caledonia Furnace, which was owned by Pennsylvania’s Radical Republican Congressman Thaddeus Stevens.

    From General Early as found on this Link:

    As we were leaving, I caused the iron works of Mr. Thaddeus Stevens near Greenwood, consisting of a furnace, a forge, a rolling mill--with a saw mill and storehouse attached,--to be burnt by my pioneer party. The enemy had destroyed a number of similar works, as well as manufacturing establishments of different kinds, in those parts of the Southern States to which he had been able to penetrate, upon the plea that they furnished us the means of carrying on the war, besides burning many private houses and destroying a vast deal of private property which could be employed in no way in supporting the war on our part; and finding in my way these works of Mr. Stevens, who--as a member of the Federal Congress--had been advocating the most vindictive measures of confiscation and devastation, I determined to destroy them. This I did on my own responsibility, as neither General Lee nor General Ewell knew I would encounter these works. A quantity of provisions found in store at the furnace was appropriated to the use of my command, but the houses and private property of the employees were not molested.

    Perhaps that was from General Early's memoirs. I read somewhere that General Lee later provisioned some of the people at the destroyed Stevens iron works out of his own commissary, but I can't document it myself.

  • `Flame and Blame` uncovers Sherman's strategy of war on civilians

    12/19/2014 11:11:08 AM PST · 201 of 204
    rustbucket to BroJoeK
    Of course, my listing is not complete, a longer list might show other towns looted or burned.
    But they would not all be by Union troops, and some of the earliest (i.e., Lawrence) came at the hands of Confederates.

    You've mentioned Lawrence before. That was the work of a Southern guerrilla group led by Quantrill, not by an authorized Confederate unit. As your link on Lawrence said: "Quantrill himself said his motivation for the attack was, "To plunder, and destroy the town in retaliation for Osceola."

    Here is a link to the Sacking of Osceola on September 23, 1861 by Kansas Jayhawkers led by US Senator Lane. The Jayhawkers could probably also be classified a guerrilla group. The sacking of Osceola, Missouri resulted in the burning of all but three houses out of the 800 houses in town and the execution of nine citizens.

    According to the book "Civil War on the Western Border, 1854-1865" by Jay Monaghan, "The property destroyed or appropriated [in Osceola] was reckoned to be worth a million dollars -- ample compensation for the Southerners' capture of Lexington [by General Price], according to Lane's calculations." Senator Lane took home a piano, some silk dresses and a fine carriage as his share of the booty. The sacking of Osceola apparently was the basis for the movie, "The Outlaw Josey Wales." [Link]

    Here is a link to the Battle of Lexington mentioned in my quote above. It doesn't mention looting, nor does my Monaghan book I cited above. It sounds like a legitimate battle between the Union forces (including an Illinois cavalry regiment and the 23rd Illinois infantry regiment commanded by a Chicago politician) and Price's Missouri State Guard, who opposed out of state forces coming in and deposing their legitimate state government.

    No doubt there were damages to various buildings caused by the battle. Some houses were flattened to permit artillery fire. Federal canon fire set houses on fire in Lexington. Lexington was largely a town of Southern supporters, so there may not have been much looting by Price's troops.

    The use of hemp bales by Price's troops in the battle of Lexington mentioned in the Wikipedia link above was inventive. It reminds me of the use of cotton bales on two small bayou steamers that captured the US ship Harriet Lane and drove away the small Federal fleet that had captured Galveston, Texas.

    Monaghan's book says the following about the hemp bales at Lexington: "[A] citizen volunteered a novel idea to end the siege. Why not advance to the enemy position behind a movable breastworks of hemp bales?" Price liked the idea. Bales were soaked in the river and arranged into a wall. The soaked bales did not catch fire when hot shot was fired at them by Union artillery. From Monaghan's book again, "Next morning the Federals saw a dark barrier lying like a snake across the ridges and hollows. As they watched, the line twitched and moved forward, crushing down weeds and sunflowers. It parted for trees and joined together after passing them." Well, tanks hadn't been invented yet, but the bales sufficed and brought about the Union surrender.

  • `Flame and Blame` uncovers Sherman's strategy of war on civilians

    12/18/2014 7:22:01 PM PST · 193 of 204
    rustbucket to BroJoeK; StoneWall Brigade
    [StoneWall Brigade]: "Since when is freeper rustbucket a lost causer?
    Last time I checked he was of the most objective person on here."

    Many thanks, StoneWall Brigade.

    [BroJoeK]: Yes, rusty is a credit to himself and Free Republic.
    His posts are a delight and serious education to read, always appreciated.

    Many thanks to you too, BroJoeK.

    [BroJoeK]: But rest assured, rusty is not "objective", he is firmly committed to the pro-Confederate perspective, and will seldom if ever post anything opposing it.

    I do take the Southern point of view, and I try to back it up with data I find and arguments that make sense to me. Since the Union armies were in Southern territory during most of the war, there is plenty of opportunity to find where Union soldiers did bad things. I expect the Union supporters on these threads like yourself to make pro-Union arguments, and they do. If I find information to refute their arguments, I'll post it if I have time and am not involved in something else that takes my time away from these threads. I've got lots of things to do outside of FreeRepublic which is why I've not posted much in the last year and a half.

    I have access to old newspapers and a personal library of books on the war. While the old newspapers are certainly not always objective, I've found that they often contain much interesting history that didn't make it into the history books. So I do quote from them a lot. The Official Records and the Congressional Record are also good sources.

    Re: objective. I have on occasion posted about bad things Confederates did or poor decisions they made. Whether that makes me objective or not, I don't know. In looking for 4CJ's old post that StoneWall Brigade mentioned above, I found that I had posted about some looting that Confederates did in the thread that contained 4CJ's post. See Post 100 of that thread. Also see Post 108.

  • `Flame and Blame` uncovers Sherman's strategy of war on civilians

    12/17/2014 8:03:45 PM PST · 184 of 204
    rustbucket to StoneWall Brigade
    Freeper 4CJ posted some stuff about what Sherman’s men did to his ancestors neighbor it was awful.

    Here is a link to 4CJ's old post: Link

  • `Flame and Blame` uncovers Sherman's strategy of war on civilians

    12/11/2014 6:56:08 PM PST · 165 of 204
    rustbucket to stremba; Mrs. Don-o
    The laws of war are indeed fairly clear - it is impermissible to intentionally target civilians. Sherman’s army clearly did target civilians intentionally. The only question for Sherman’s personal responsibility is whether he specifically ordered such targeting. It certainly seems to me that he did not specifically order civilians to be targeted, but that he must nonetheless be held responsible for the actions of his men.

    I'm returning to what you posted above because Sherman did, in fact, order the targeting of civilians and their houses and cities on occasion. I cite the following from the Official Records of the war, that massive collection of cables, orders, and reports issued during the war.

    General Sherman to General Schofield, August 1, 1864: "You may fire from ten to fifteen shots from every gun you have in position into Atlanta that will reach any of its house. ... Thomas and Howard will do the same."

    General Sherman to General Watkins, Calhoun, Ga., October 29, 1864: "Cannot you send over about Fairmount and Adairsville, burn about ten or twelve houses of known secessionists, kill a few at random, and let them know it will be repeated every time a train is fired on from Reseca to Kingston?

    General Sherman to General George H. Thomas, November 11, 1864: "… Last night we burned Rome, and in two or more days will burn Atlanta ..."

    General William D. Whipple to General D. S. Stanley, November 13, 1864: "General Sherman left Kingston yesterday morning; camped at Allatoona last night; will probably reach Atlanta to-morrow, whence he starts on his trip south. He has already burnt Rome, and says he is going to burn Atlanta and other towns south."

    I also found the following in the History of South Carolina:

    Sherman is reported to have said the following in Salem, Illinois, in July 1865 about a change in policy he made on his march to the sea. "Therefore, I resolved in a moment to stop the game of guarding their cities and to destroy their cities."
  • `Flame and Blame` uncovers Sherman's strategy of war on civilians

    12/11/2014 3:06:45 PM PST · 163 of 204
    rustbucket to Mrs. Don-o; stremba
    I forgot to provide where I found that quote. I found it on a microfilm of old New York Times issues in one of my local libraries. That particular Sherman testimony was in a very long article in the May 10, 1873 edition. I later learned that the original article can also be found online at Link to New York Times article.
  • `Flame and Blame` uncovers Sherman's strategy of war on civilians

    12/10/2014 6:41:04 PM PST · 160 of 204
    rustbucket to stremba; Mrs. Don-o
    The only question for Sherman’s personal responsibility is whether he specifically ordered such targeting. It certainly seems to me that he did not specifically order civilians to be targeted, but that he must nonetheless be held responsible for the actions of his men. He failed to do enough to maintain discipline to prevent widespread targeting of civilians ...

    There is also another question -- could Sherman have stopped his troops from burning houses? In the case of the wholesale burning of Columbia, South Carolina, he did not stop his troops. Here is his testimony before an 1873 commission:

    Q. -- You testified, a little while ago, that it was very likely they [Sherman's own men] might burn Columbia, and you permitted them, or your officers did -- permitted them to go about the town?

    A. -- I could have had them stay in the ranks, but I would not have done it, under the circumstances, to save Columbia.

    Q. -- Although you knew they were likely to burn Columbia, you would not restrain them to their ranks, even to save it?

    A. -- No, Sir. I would not have done such harshness to my soldiers to save the whole town. They were men, and I was not going to treat them like slaves. ...
  • `Flame and Blame` uncovers Sherman's strategy of war on civilians

    12/08/2014 1:04:33 PM PST · 155 of 204
    rustbucket to StoneWall Brigade
    I hope someday you write a book on the war between the states with your wealth of knowledge and resources I bet it would top shelby foote or the author of Real Lincoln.

    Interesting idea that has crossed my mind too. Thank you.

  • `Flame and Blame` uncovers Sherman's strategy of war on civilians

    12/07/2014 7:48:04 PM PST · 152 of 204
    rustbucket to rockrr
    taney was more of an ideological partisan than he was a judge. Think Ruth Bader Ginsburg. His foremost objective was opposing Lincoln and the Republicans. He merely used the cover of law to carry out his agenda.

    Does support for the Constitution make one an ideological partisan? Not necessarily. I would have opposed Lincoln for violating the Constitution, but I would have done it because I'm more of an originalist than a living Constitution guy. Perhaps Taney is an originalist also in that he quotes Marshall and Story who are closer to the period when the Constitution was written (and Marshall was a member of the Virginia ratification convention). Perhaps anyone who takes a stand one way or the other can be labeled an ideological partisan. Are you an ideological partisan, rockrr?

    I'm more like Antonin Scalia with his originalist arguments than like Ruth Bader Ginsburg who is a partisan. That's the ticket. Me and Scalia. Peas in a pod. Cough, cough. I'm not qualified to shine his shoes.

    Actually, I don't like Taney's historical arguments supporting his position in Dred Scott, but parts of Taney's Ex parte Merryman give me goose bumps -- it is a brilliant piece of writing. From Ex parte Merryman:

    Yet, under these circumstances, a military officer, stationed in Pennsylvania, without giving any information to the district attorney, and without any application to the judicial authorities, assumes to himself the judicial power in the district of Maryland; undertakes to decide what constitutes the crime of treason or rebellion; what evidence (if indeed he required any) is sufficient to support the accusation and justify the commitment; and commits the party, without a hearing, even before himself, to close custody, in a strongly garrisoned fort, to be there held, it would seem, during the pleasure of those who committed him.

    The constitution provides, as I have before said, that "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law." It declares that "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." It provides that the party accused shall be entitled to a speedy trial in a court of justice.

    These great and fundamental laws, which congress itself could not suspend, have been disregarded and suspended, like the writ of habeas corpus, by a military order, supported by force of arms. Such is the case now before me, and I can only say that if the authority which the constitution has confided to the judiciary department and judicial officers, may thus, upon any pretext or under any circumstances, be usurped by the military power, at its discretion, the people of the United States are no longer living under a government of laws, but every citizen holds life, liberty and property at the will and pleasure of the army officer in whose military district he may happen to be found.[3]

    In such a case, my duty was too plain to be mistaken. I have exercised all the power which the constitution and laws confer upon me, but that power has been resisted by a force too strong for me to overcome. It is possible that the officer who has incurred this grave responsibility may have misunderstood his instructions, and exceeded the authority intended to be given him; I shall, therefore, order all the proceedings in this case, with my opinion, to be filed and recorded in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Maryland, and direct the clerk to transmit a copy, under seal, to the president of the United States. It will then remain for that high officer, in fulfilment of his constitutional obligation to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed," to determine what measures he will take to cause the civil process of the United States to be respected and enforced.

    Hmmm. I hadn’t noticed it before, but the last paragraph indicates why he filed HIS opinion (which was written as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court) at the Circuit Court. He does provide an explanation, such as it is, for filing his opinion there. His explanation does not say his opinion is a Circuit Court opinion, just that it was filed there in Baltimore to help General Cadwalader in Baltimore understand the ramifications of what he (Cadwalader) had done.

  • `Flame and Blame` uncovers Sherman's strategy of war on civilians

    12/07/2014 1:38:01 PM PST · 150 of 204
    rustbucket to rockrr
    You may call it superfluous but in view of the partisan stink taney started I see it as prudent.

    "Partisan stink?" LOL. I've never heard adhering to the Constitution and the rule of law called that before. Come on, rockrr.

    Lincoln could have quickly convened his Congress like Jefferson Davis did. They could have given him the authority to suspend habeas corpus (or not, if the case didn't justify it). But, Lincoln chose not to do that and essentially ruled without checks and balances while he kept Congress out of session.

    BTW, Lincoln's minions also put another judge under house arrest to prevent him from going to court and ruling against the administration on another habeas corpus case. Which side was being "partisan?"

  • `Flame and Blame` uncovers Sherman's strategy of war on civilians

    12/07/2014 10:54:36 AM PST · 148 of 204
    rustbucket to DoodleDawg
    If he was speaking for the Supreme Court then why did he file it in the circuit court?

    He also forwarded it to President Lincoln, which was not the act of a Circuit Court Judge. He was acting under his powers as a Justice of the Supreme Court referring a valid order of a Supreme Court Justice to the Executive Branch of government. It was now up to the Executing Branch to follow the order or appeal it to the entire Supreme Court. Lincoln punted and ignored it. It was during this time that, according to Lincoln's associate Ward Lamon, that Lincoln had had an arrest warrant for Taney prepared that in the end was never executed.

    Taney may have filed in the District Court because that court was open, and he could get it into the public record more quickly that way. Time was of an essence.

    Taney had gone to Baltimore to issue the writ so that General Cadwalader in Baltimore could not use the excuse that he couldn’t leave Baltimore to go to Washington to appear before Taney because his military duties kept him in Baltimore.

    I remember the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ex Parte Bollman and Ex Parte Swartwout (1807). The first sentence in the Syllabus is, "This Court has power to issue the writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum." The opinion of the Supreme Court in this case (which, as an aside, was issued by my blood cousin, Chief Justice John Marshall) cited US law as follows:

    "That all the before mentioned courts of the United States shall have power to issue writs of scire facias, habeas corpus, and all other writs not specially provided for by statute which may be necessary for the exercise of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the principles and usages of law. And that either of the justices of the Supreme Court as well as judges of the district courts shall have power to grant writs of habeas corpus for the purpose of an inquiry into the cause of commitment. Provided that writs of habeas corpus shall in no case extend to prisoners in gaol unless where they are in custody under or by color of the authority of the United States or are committed for trial before some court of the same or are necessary to be brought into court to testify. "

    As Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Taney had the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus. As the writ says, he issued it as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and response to the writ was answerable to Taney acting as Chief Justice, not Taney acting as a Circuit Court Judge.

    The military had previously refused a writ issued by District Court Judge Giles in a May 4, 1861 habeas corpus case. They had thus already rendered the District Court impotent. In that circumstance, Taney was right to elevate it to the Supreme Court level.

    Merryman’s lawyers applied to Taney for the writ. As I said above, Taney had it in his power to issue the writ as a Justice of the Supreme Court, which is what he did. I did find my old newspaper account of what Taney said to the court. From the Baltimore Sun in its May 29, 1861, issue:

    “Chief Justice Taney, upon taking his seat on the bench, said that he desired to state that his associate, Judge Giles, of the Circuit Court, was present with him yesterday by his invitation, because he desired to avail himself of his counsel and advice in so important a case. The writ of habeas corpus was ordered by him as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, consequently Judge Giles could not act with him in the case.”

    If the writ had been issued by Taney acting as a Circuit Court judge, then Judge Giles could have acted with him.

    I am reminded too of Taney citing Chief Justice John Marshall’s opinion in Ex Parte Bollman and Ex Parte Swartwout (1807):

    If at any time the public safety should require the suspension of the powers vested by this act in the courts of the United States, it is for the legislature to say so. That question depends on political considerations, on which the legislature is to decide. Until the legislative will be expressed, this Court can only see its duty, and must obey the laws.

    In that opinion, Chief Justice Marshall was agreeing with Alexander Hamilton and John Jay (authors of the Federalist Papers whom I cited above) in what the Constitution meant with respect to habeas corpus, i.e., “…that such inquiry or removal ought not to be denied or delayed, except when, on account of public danger, the Congress shall suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

    It is refreshing these days, is it not, to hear of a Justice of the Supreme Court following the Constitution.

    Unlike Confederate President Jefferson Davis who convened his Congress less than three weeks after Fort Sumter. Lincoln could have done the same given the momentous events that had occurred. However, Lincoln did not convene his Congress until months after Fort Sumter. During that time before the July date that he had specified for Congress to reconvene, Lincoln violated the Constitution on several occasions, usurping the powers of both Congress and the Courts without Congress in session to object.

    If Lincoln did have the power to suspend the writ, why did Congress in 1863 finally pass a law that authorized him to suspend it from that point on? If Lincoln legitimately had the power to suspend the writ on his own without Congress acting, then Congress’s 1863 action was unneeded and superfluous.

  • `Flame and Blame` uncovers Sherman's strategy of war on civilians

    12/06/2014 4:35:24 PM PST · 146 of 204
    rustbucket to DoodleDawg
    The Supreme Court did not. Only Chief Justice Taney issuing his ruling from the Circuit Court bench said Lincoln could not. The entire court never took the matter up.

    You are correct that the entire Supreme Court did not hear this case, but I think you are wrong that Chief Justice Taney issued the ruling from the Circuit Court. One of the lawyers who used to post on FreeRepublic noted that it was issued as an in-chambers ruling, not a district court ruling. Our lawyer friend said the following in a post:

    "The famous opinion in Ex Parte Merryman, the one delivered to President Lincoln, issued from the Supreme Court. In was an in-chambers opinion of Chief Justice Taney acting in his capacity as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. ,,, Technically, he did not issue it in his capacity as a judge "on circuit" but rather as an "in chambers" opinion of the chief justice."

    Whichever way it was, a district court order or an order issued as chief justice, it was a valid court order that Lincoln ignored. If Lincoln wanted it overturned, he could have appealed to one court or the other. He didn't. I suspect he knew he would lose.

    At the time this was being discussed on FreeRepublic years ago, another lawyer poster who is now dead, I believe, sent me the following by Freepmail"

    In HIS decision, Taney writes:

    "Before THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT of the United States, at Chambers."

    "The application in this case for a writ of habeas corpus is made to ME..."

    "I resolved to hear it in the latter city..."

    "...a habeas corpus is served on the commanding officer, requiring him to produce the prisoner before A JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT..."

    "As the case comes before ME ..."

    "I shall, therefore, order all the proceedings in this case, with MY opinion, to be filed and recorded in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Maryland..." "CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT of the United States..."

    District Court Judge Giles had already had a habeas corpus writ turned down by Lincoln's military, Perhaps Giles suggested to Merryman's counsel to go discus the case with Taney. Anyway, Taney showed up in the District Court.

    My first lawyer friend then posted the following and gave a reference:

    "As he took his place he announced that he acted alone rather than with Judge Giles because of the fact that he was sitting not as a member of the circuit court, but as Chief Justice of the United States. One reason for the distinction, undoubtedly, was the belief that it would lend added weight to the decision."

    "-- Carl Brent Swisher, Roger B. Taney, The MacMillan Company, published October 1935, reprint June 1936, pp. 551."

    In another old newspaper covering the case, I later found mention of Taney saying in court during the proceedings that Judge Giles had no say in the case or something to that effect.

  • `Flame and Blame` uncovers Sherman's strategy of war on civilians

    12/06/2014 2:08:20 PM PST · 138 of 204
    rustbucket to jmacusa; TexasFreeper2009
    You entirely missed Article 1 Section 9. There the president has the power to act unilaterally in such extreme times. He doesn't need to consult the Supreme court to take the actions granted him under this article. And notice also it say's ''may require it.

    Article 1 refers to the powers of Congress. You might consider what Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, two of the three authors of the Federalist Papers that explained the Constitution to the people, signed a statement saying that this was what the Constitution meant with respect to habeas corpus:

    That every person restrained of his liberty is entitled to an inquiry into the lawfulness of such restraint, and to a removal thereof if unlawful; and that such inquiry or removal ought not to be denied or delayed, except when, on account of public danger, the Congress shall suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

    But we are to believe that you know more than Hamilton and Jay about what the Constitution means.

  • `Flame and Blame` uncovers Sherman's strategy of war on civilians

    12/06/2014 10:40:03 AM PST · 133 of 204
    rustbucket to Politicalkiddo; PeaRidge

    I found my missing “pamphlet.” It is 120 pages long and is entitled, “Pensacola Fortifications, 1698-1980, Guardians on the Gulf” by James C. and Irene S. Coleman and published by the Pensacola Historical Society.

    On page 39 it says, “About midnight on the eighth [January 8, 1861] a group of men approached the fort and failing to answer when challenged, were fired upon by the guard.”

  • `Flame and Blame` uncovers Sherman's strategy of war on civilians

    12/06/2014 10:23:24 AM PST · 132 of 204
    rustbucket to Politicalkiddo; PeaRidge
    With respect to the shots fired at Fort Barrancas, here are a couple of links that indicate the shots were fired by Union soldiers in the fort, not by Southerners outside the fort: Link 1 and Link 2.

    Somewhere in my library I have a pamphlet published by local Florida historians that says the same thing. I purchased it at Fort Pickens.

  • 150 years on, Sherman's March to Sea still vivid

    12/05/2014 8:09:14 PM PST · 96 of 355
    rustbucket to Ditto; DiogenesLamp
    No, the first blood shed was on Pratt street in Baltimore when Confederate goons fired on Union troops passing through on their way to Washington.

    Hello Ditto. It's been a long time.

    Your memory is off about the first blood. Your view is a common misperception probably encouraged by Baltimore. The first blood was actually shed in Fort Sumter during the April 12-14 bombardment. No one was killed in the bombardment, but two or three Union guys were wounded in the fort during the bombardment

    If it is first deaths you are talking about, that happened in Texas on April 15th, 1861. Pro-Union Tejanos threatened to hang Confederate supporters in South Texas. John Salmon R.I.P. Ford (later my great-great grandfather's commander in the war) sent Texas Rangers down to Zapata County, Texas to arrest those threatening to kill Texas officials. Nine of the Tejanos were killed in a battle with the Rangers on April 15.

    The Tejanos were Hispanic Texans who were supporters of the Mexican Juan Cortinas. Cortinas had invaded and taken over the town of Brownsville, Texas a year or two before the war. There were insufficient federal troops in the Rio Grande Valley at that time. The people of Brownsville later (but before the war) had to hire the Mexican Army to protect them from Cortinas. Texas Rangers under R.I.P. Ford and a company of Federal troops then went down to the Valley and chased Cortinas across the Rio Grande. The Rangers went into Mexico after Cortinas, but Cortinas managed to get away in a battle.

    One of Texas' complaints in their secession document was that the Feds weren't sufficiently protecting Texas from invasion. Sound familiar?

  • 150 years on, Sherman's March to Sea still vivid

    12/05/2014 4:52:30 PM PST · 89 of 355
    rustbucket to PeaRidge

    Thanks. FYI, too.

  • 150 years on, Sherman's March to Sea still vivid

    12/05/2014 3:04:54 PM PST · 82 of 355
    rustbucket to mdmathis6; 11th_VA
    If that was the case..then many Sherman haters have nothing to bray about...Sherman was responding to what had happened at Chambersburg...

    Chambersburg was in response to Union General Hunter destroying much of the Shenandoah Valley. From Confederate General Early whose troops burned Chambersburg:

    General Hunter in his recent raid to Lynchburg, caused wide-spread ruin wherever he passed. I followed him about sixty miles, and language would fail me to describe the terrible desolation which marked his path. Dwelling-houses and other buildings were almost universally burned; fences, implements of husbandry, and everything available for the sustenance of human life, so far as he could do so, were everywhere destroyed. We found many, very many, families of helpless women and children who had been suddenly turned out of doors, and their houses and contents condemned to the flames; and in some cases where they had rescued some extra clothing, the soldiers had torn the garments into narrow strips, and strewn them upon the ground for us to witness when we arrived in pursuit.

    General Hunter has been much censured by the voice of humanity everywhere, and he richly deserves it all; yet he has caused scarcely one-tenth part of the devastation which has been committed immediately in sight of the headquarters of General Meade and General Grant, in Eastern Virginia.

    Also from Confederate private Slingluff, acknowledged by a Chambersburg resident to be a reliable source, came the following description of Hunter's destructive record:

    We had seen a thousand ruined homes in Clark, Jefferson, and Frederick counties,- barns and houses burned and private property destroyed

    Here was General Early's rationale for burning Chambersburg as reported in the Philadelphia Age:

    I was very reluctant, and it was a most disagreeable duty, to inflict such damage on these citizens; but I deemed it an imperative necessity to show the people of the Federal States that war has two sides. I hope and believe it has had, and will have a good effect. I saw with much pleasure, since then, an able article in the National Intelligencer, which called upon the north to consider gravely whether such a mode of warfare as they had inaugurated is likely to yield a success commensurate to its cost.

    The Richmond Dispatch newspaper on August 4, 1864, mentions that the burning of Chambersburg was a good retaliation for city burnings by Federal troops. Somewhere in my old newspaper records I have an article on the time that says Chambersburg was basically the first -- there would have to be twenty more before Confederates caught up with the Federals in burning cities.

    At a late hour last night we received Northern accounts of a rebel invasion of Pennsylvania, though the force engaged is somewhat a matter of conjecture. In burning Chambersburg, however, the Confederates have done a thorough piece of work. This carries the war home to the doors of the Yankees, and is a good retaliation for the burning of Jacksonville, Florida; Jackson, Mississippi, and other cities in the South.

    To some extent, General Early's burning of Chambersburg was successful in getting Lincoln to think, at least temporarily, about stopping the burning of Southern cities, which had been ongoing for some time. Lincoln, no doubt, was concerned about the effect that burning a Northern town such as Chambersburg might have on the upcoming 1864 election. Here was his response to Grant following the Chambersburg burning:

    WASHINGTON, D. C., August 14, 1864 - 1.50 p. m.

    Lieutenant-General GRANT,
    City Point, Va.:

    The Secretary of War and I concur that you had better confer with General Lee and stipulate for a mutual discontinuance of house burning and other destruction of private property. The time and manner of conference and particulars of stipulation we leave, on our part, to your convenience and judgment.

    A. LINCOLN.
  • 'You can hug me, you can shake my hand - I won't give you Ebola' (Kaci Hickox)

    10/30/2014 8:37:33 AM PDT · 64 of 67
    rustbucket to rustbucket
    Another old article on the laws of New York on quarantine (my emphasis below):

    Sec. 124. BOARDING VESSELS - …. All persons coming from or through any foreign port or place who may arrive at the port of New York, shall be liable to an examination by the health officer or his deputies, as regards their protection from small-pox. In case any person so arriving shall refuse to submit to such examination, or upon arrival such examination shall be found not sufficiently protected from small-pox, or refuse to be protected by vaccination, such person, and in case such person be a minor, then also the person having him or her under charge, shall be detained in quarantine until he or she shall have passed the incubation period from the date of the last possible exposure; and the expense of such detention shall be chargeable by the health officer upon the consignees or owners of the vessel having such person on board, and such expenses as may be incurred shall be a lien upon such vessel. [Source: "The Laws of New York" as reported in The Daily Brooklyn Eagle, July 21, 1909, page 10 (Link]
  • 'You can hug me, you can shake my hand - I won't give you Ebola' (Kaci Hickox)

    10/30/2014 7:54:54 AM PDT · 63 of 67
    rustbucket to 2ndDivisionVet
    From a more enlightened time (my bold red emphasis below):

    Sec. 24. CONTAGIOUS AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES – Every such local board of health shall guard against the introduction of contagious and infectious diseases by the exercise of proper and vigilant medical inspection and control of all persons and things arriving in the municipality from infected places, or which from any cause are liable to communicate contagion. It shall require the isolation of all persons and things infected with or exposed to such diseases, and provide suitable places for the treatment and care of sick persons who cannot otherwise be provided for. [Source: "The Laws of New York," as reported in The Brooklyn Daily Eagle newspaper on page 8 of the July 7, 1893 edition (Link)]

    I noticed that there is a nurse who just returned from treating Ebola patients in Sierra Leone who voluntarily agreed to undergo 21-day quarantine at her home in Central Texas. She is being lauded for her action as reported in the Austin-American Statesman, October 30, 2014, page 1.

  • CDC Says Ebola Droplets Can Only Travel 3 Feet … But MIT Research Shows Sneezes Can Travel Up to 20

    10/29/2014 1:32:15 PM PDT · 58 of 58
    rustbucket to Alter Kaker
    I've seen some mighty impressive projectile vomiting, but 20 feet is a stretch.

    Here is a link to a paper by the MIT researchers: http://math.mit.edu/~bush/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Sneezing-JFM.pdf. This paper was published in J. Fluid Mech. (2014), vol. 745, pp. 537-563. copyright Cambridge University Press 2014 doi:10.1017/jfm.2014.88. The MIT publication Technology Review had a recent article about the research, but the Journal of Fluid Mechanics paper above contains more details.

    The Journal of Fluid Mechanics paper indicates that very small sneeze/cough droplets tend to become part of a buoyant cloud and consequently might travel many meters. The paper does not discuss Ebola or how far Ebola might be transmitted in a cough or sneeze. However, considering the small size of Ebola virons and the findings of the MIT authors' sneeze/cough research, there may be cause to worry.

    Figure 18(b) of the paper shows that a 30 micron (i.e., 30 micrometers or 30,000 nanometers) sized sneeze/cough droplet can travel almost 8 feet before it falls out. A 30 micron sneeze/cough particle could contain one or more infective Ebola virons. The paper cites other work showing that the majority of droplets in a cough are less than 30 microns in size. The paper says that a 10 micron size sneeze/cough particle can remain in the buoyant section of a sneeze/cough cloud many meters from the person coughing.

    This link (Link) cites the CDC for Ebola viron sizes indicating that infective Ebola virons need only be 0.97 microns large (i.e., 970 nanometers). Ebola virons can range up to 14 microns in size (i.e., 14,000 nanometers). These sizes suggest that infective Ebola virons could be carried by small sneeze/cough droplets.

    All of this assumes that the air passages of the lungs, nose, or throat of a person infected with Ebola contain infective Ebola virons that might be expelled in sneeze/cough droplets.

  • Burnet County (TX) couple (whole family) unhurt in tornado: ‘I felt the house being lifted’

    06/13/2014 6:38:10 PM PDT · 4 of 16
    rustbucket to bgill

    The print edition of the Statesman had the following on the front page this morning, “At least three Burnet County homes are damaged by a tornado, including one home thrown 150 years from its foundation.”

  • John Paul Stevens Proposes New Constitutional Amendments

    04/24/2014 7:51:55 AM PDT · 23 of 57
    rustbucket to Kaslin; EternalVigilance
    [Stevens]: 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms WHEN SERVING IN THE MILITIA shall not be infringed.'

    Balderdash! Here is a link to an excellent FreeRepublic post quoting numerous founders about who should bear arms and why: [Link to a post by EternalVigilance]

    In addition, here is a statement from the 1776 Pennsylvania Constitution in keeping with the founders' views cited in the link above by EternalVigilance: [Link, my bold below]

    XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.