Oops, big lump of your posts....

[leftyhunter]

For more reading pleasure and a complete rebuttal to unsourced assertions;
"Lincoln's Suspension of the writ of habeus corpus:an historical and Constitutional Analysis p.47-66
https:quid.lib.umich.edu
James A.Dueholm
Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association
Leftyhunter

 

[Kelly]

For more reading pleasure and a complete rebuttal to unsourced assertions;
"Lincoln's Suspension of the writ of habeus corpus:an historical and Constitutional Analysis p.47-66
https:quid.lib.umich.edu
James A.Dueholm
Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association
Leftyhunter

For more reading and replies to unsourced claims I would suggest:

1. Joseph Story Commentaries of the Constitution

2. St. George Tucker View of the Constitution

3. Blackstone's Commentaries

4. Ex Parte Merryman


I'll have more for you later. In the meantime, any luck with Article II?

 

[leftyhunter]

For more reading I would suggest:

1. Joseph Story Commentaries of the Constitution

2. St. George Tucker View of the Constitution

3. Blackstone's Commentaries

4. Ex Parte Merryman


I'll have more for you later. In the meantime, any luck with Article II?

In law the only judicial notice that limits a presidents power is a full panel of the US Supreme Court or a Circuit Court of appeals.
Cite one if those to support your assertion.
Leftyhunter

 

[Kelly]

In law the only judicial notice that limits a presidents power is a full panel of the US Supreme Court or a Circuit Court of appeals.
Cite one if those to support your assertion.
Leftyhunter

Under the Constitution a federal district court opinion is controlling and final and the president has no lawful means of resisting its finality. Unless, like Lincoln, he uses guns, knives and the violence of the army. And please cite the power in Article II.

 

[Copperhead-mi]

Some may take Attorney General Bates' phrase "If by the phrase the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, we must understand a repeal of all power to issue the writ, then I freely admit that none but Congress can do it" out of context by omitting the very next two sentences and think they've hit a home run. The very next two sentences are "But if we are at liberty to understand the phrase to mean, that, in case of a great and dangerous rebellion, like the present, the public safety requires the arrest and confinement of persons implicated in that rebellion, I as freely declare the opinion, that the President has lawful power to suspend the privilege of persons arrested under such circumstances. For he is especially charged by the Constitution with the "public safety," and he is the sole judge of the emergency which requires his prompt action."

If you noticed in Bates' preceding commentary he spoke of English law and habeas corpus. The main difference in the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus under English law and under American law was in England when the privilege of the Writ was suspended, a judge was prohibited from issuing a writ of habeas corpus while in the United States, suspension of the privilege of the Writ meant that what is suspended is the privilege on the part of the arrested citizen to have the Writ obeyed. In other words, the judge could issue any number of writs of habeas corpus in the limited area of the suspension, but none of them would be acted on. The Congress is the only branch that has the power to suspend the issuance of the Writ and it must enact legislation to provide for that.When Andrew Jackson took it upon his self to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in New Orleans he followed the English law and arrested a newspaper editor for anti-Jackson comments and for being critical of his martial law proclamation. Jackson refused to release the editor to the court when presented with a Writ of habeas corpus. Jackson then threatened to arrest the judge if he issued another Writ and when the judge issued the second Writ, Jackson immediately had him arrested and confined in the same military jail the newspaper editor was thrown in. Lincoln's suspension of the privilege of the Writ never affected the issuance of the Writ by a judge since that could only be enacted by Congress If you carefully read the entire comment of Bates in context, you'll see that the out of context quote is not what Bates concluded..

 

[Kelly]

Said Bates:

"If by the phrase the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, we must understand a repeal of all power to issue the writ, then I freely admit that none but Congress can do it."

Perfectly summarized. And perfectly in contextualized. A constitutional home run in fact.

 

[Lost Cause]

The resolutions

It's pretty explicit in the minutes of the convention. They were hoping to avoid a war by getting Lincoln to give assurances to protect secession and slavery. Here's what they sent to him as the official policy of the convention:


Proposals Adopted by the Virginia Convention of 1861
The first resolution asserted states' rights per se; the second was for retention of slavery; the third opposed sectional parties; the fourth called for equal recognition of slavery in both territories and non-slave states; the fifth demanded the removal of federal forts and troops from seceded states; the sixth hoped for a peaceable adjustment of grievances and maintaining the Union; the seventh called for Constitutional amendments to remedy federal and state disputes; the eighth recognized the right of secession; the ninth said the federal government had no authority over seceded states since it refused to recognize their withdrawal; the tenth said the federal government was empowered to recognize the Confederate States; the eleventh was an appeal to Virginia's sister states; the twelfth asserted Virginia's willingness to wait a reasonable period of time for an answer to its propositions, providing no one resorted to force against the seceded states; the thirteenth asked United States and Confederate States governments to remain peaceful; and the fourteenth asked the border slave states to meet in conference to consider Virginia's resolutions and to join in Virginia's appeal to the North

And of course many of them realized what the cost would be if they seceded.

Alexander Stuart, one of the three delegates sent to Lincoln with those demands, stated: "Secession is not only war," he warned his colleagues, "but it is emancipation; it is bankruptcy; it is repudiation; it is widespread ruin to our people."

The proposed resolutions essentially went out the window upon the commencement of the war and the Ordinance of Secession was ratified.

 

[jgoodguy]

The resolutions

The proposed resolutions essentially went out the window upon the commencement of the war and the Ordinance of Secession was ratified.

Essentially? How is this so?

 

[Lost Cause]

Essentially? How is this so?

Peacetime measures

 

[Gene Green]

Follow this train of wrecked thought at your own intellectual risk. Abandon hope of historical accuracy, all ye who enter into this argument.

This train didn’t wreck , it is simply gaining momentum on it’s true course.
The south did not want it’s interior water transportation business messed with and tried to block building the bridge at Rock Island. This effort was headed by Davis who, ironically, lost his case of federal possession to the oppositions case of state’s rights. Imagine that. Lincoln was the attorney for the bridge company in litigation brought by the steamship interests. Davis, as secretary of war, took an active role in the contest between northern and southern routes for a transcontinental railroad.The bridge opened in 1856. The south was still primarily interested in north-south traffic and migration vs the north’s interest in east-west migration . Memphis did not bridge the river until 1892. The south resisted change and refused to pay for improvements that the central government would ultimately pay for.
These are the things deTocqueville noticed. Industry, innovation, and productiveness on one side of the line and laziness, elitism, dependence on stagnant institutions and forced labor on the other.

 

[ebg12]

Senator Howard

Question. "You understand my question: Suppose a jury was impanelled in your own neighborhood, taken up by lot; would it be practicable to convict, for instance, Jefferson Davis for having levied war upon the United States, and thus having committed the crime of treason?"

General Robert E. Lee

Answer. "I think it is very probable that they would not consider he had committed treason."

Testimony of Robert E. Lee, before Congress..Feb. 17th 1866...

https://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Robert_E_Lee_s_Testimony_before_Congress_February_17_1866

Because southerns in Lee’s neighborhood would be bias! What about In Ohio, or New York?

 

[leftyhunter]

Because southerns in Lee’s neighborhood would be bias! What about In Ohio, or New York?

Good question. Copper did not explain why President Johnson's Attorney General did not ask for a change of venue. Most likely because the courts might not approve it. Then again maybe not since I am thinking of a modern case where the prosecution did get a change of venue.
Also keep in mind that while President Johnson certainly supported the Union cause during the ACW Johnston quickly dropped any form of retribution towards former Confederate leaders. Davis was certainly incarcerated after the ACW but I forgot how long at least a few months though.
Leftyhunter

 

[unionblue]

Another poster repeatedly injecting the Reconstruction era 1869 Texas vs White court decision into the discussion.

Ah.

 

[unionblue]

Some may take Attorney General Bates' phrase "If by the phrase the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, we must understand a repeal of all power to issue the writ, then I freely admit that none but Congress can do it" out of context by omitting the very next two sentences and think they've hit a home run. The very next two sentences are "But if we are at liberty to understand the phrase to mean, that, in case of a great and dangerous rebellion, like the present, the public safety requires the arrest and confinement of persons implicated in that rebellion, I as freely declare the opinion, that the President has lawful power to suspend the privilege of persons arrested under such circumstances. For he is especially charged by the Constitution with the "public safety," and he is the sole judge of the emergency which requires his prompt action."

If you noticed in Bates' preceding commentary he spoke of English law and habeas corpus. The main difference in the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus under English law and under American law was in England when the privilege of the Writ was suspended, a judge was prohibited from issuing a writ of habeas corpus while in the United States, suspension of the privilege of the Writ meant that what is suspended is the privilege on the part of the arrested citizen to have the Writ obeyed. In other words, the judge could issue any number of writs of habeas corpus in the limited area of the suspension, but none of them would be acted on. The Congress is the only branch that has the power to suspend the issuance of the Writ and it must enact legislation to provide for that.When Andrew Jackson took it upon his self to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in New Orleans he followed the English law and arrested a newspaper editor for anti-Jackson comments and for being critical of his martial law proclamation. Jackson refused to release the editor to the court when presented with a Writ of habeas corpus. Jackson then threatened to arrest the judge if he issued another Writ and when the judge issued the second Writ, Jackson immediately had him arrested and confined in the same military jail the newspaper editor was thrown in. Lincoln's suspension of the privilege of the Writ never affected the issuance of the Writ by a judge since that could only be enacted by Congress If you carefully read the entire comment of Bates in context, you'll see that the out of context quote is not what Bates concluded..

@Copperhead-mi ,

You've shown that an out-of-context remark does not convey what Bates meant and said.

You've done an outstanding job showing such as the forum and visitors here will see.

Thanks for taking the time to do such.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

 

[Kelly]

I also thought Bates comment explicitly and emphatically endorsing the idea that only Congress is empowered to suspend habeas corpus was quite excellent. And it was perfectly consistent with the opinions of such brilliant constitutional scholars like Chief Justice Marshall, Chief Justice Taney, Supreme Court Judge Joseph Story and, of course, the celebrated St. George Tucker. All of the same opinion, that only the Congress can suspend. After all, the Founders created a president with limited and carefully defined constitutional authority. They most surely did not create some sort of Banana Republic Dictator who can impose his will through martial law, like *edited* That would a grotesque and foul perversion of a limited government.

 

[leftyhunter]

Under the Constitution a federal district court opinion is controlling and final and the president has no lawful means of resisting its finality. Unless, like Lincoln, he uses guns, knives and the violence of the army. And please cite the power in Article II.

Apparently not since both Congress and the courts had no problems with Lincoln suspending habeus corpus post Ex Parte Merrymen.
Leftyhunter

 

[Kelly]

Apparently not since both Congress and the courts had no problems with Lincoln suspending habeus corpus post Ex Parte Merrymen.
Leftyhunter

Apparently not, since there is, as Chief Justice Taney explicitly pronounced, absolutely zero authority under the Constitution for the president to suspend habeas corpus. Zero authority.

 

[CSA Today]

The black Southerners suffered far more duress under Reconstruction then any white Southerners

Leftyhunter

Rarely enough to prevent Carpetbaggers and scalawags being voting out of power even in the predominately white areas of the South.

 

[archieclement]

Because southerns in Lee’s neighborhood would be bias! What about In Ohio, or New York?

juries are supposed to start out with bias with the presumption of innocence, so the burden will be on the state, not the defendant

If your argueing the only way to get a conviction requires starting out with a jury that presumes guilt beforehand....the charges are probally unwarranted...…...

 

[RobertP]

Another poster repeatedly injecting the Reconstruction era 1869 Texas vs White court decision into the discussion.

Well, somebody has to play the Cash card since he’s otherwise occupied.