Oops, big lump of your posts....

Status
Not open for further replies.

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
11,053
I see it here:

"Most everyone agrees that Lincoln's action was unconstitutional"
Thanks for your response.
Yet in your initial response, you accepted that portion with delight while seemingly objecting to "The argument is whether or not it was necessary as a measure to preserve the Union."
 

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)

Kelly

Corporal
Joined
Mar 28, 2019
Messages
490
Thanks for your response.
Yet in your initial response, you accepted that portion with delight while seemingly objecting to "The argument is whether or not it was necessary as a measure to preserve the Union."


I did accept that first comment because it is accurate. But I am always saddened to see someone advocate Machiavellian "might makes right" politics. "Might makes right" is what justified cruelly shackling a pregnant African woman in the filthy bowels of a Rhode Island slave ship and transporting her to Boston in unspeakable torment and agony.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
28,934
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).

Kelly

Corporal
Joined
Mar 28, 2019
Messages
490
Good grief, more reading??!! Now some sort of journal article? For Heaven's sake, can't I just read Article II, section 2? Won't that be well worth my while?
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
19,158
Location
Laurinburg NC
Millions of blacks did move out if the South. On the other hand why was it necessary for Southern whites to terrorize black people for so long?
Leftyhunter
Stop he Yankee propaganda and hypocrisy and get back to the topic prominently stated at the top of the page. If you want to discuss why “terrorized blacks” didn't leave the South en masse start a new thread or PM me and we can discuss it there.
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
19,158
Location
Laurinburg NC
Are you denying that the KKK existed, or that terror by the KKK against black people never happened?
No would I wouldn't deny that, but haven't you ever wondered why southern white didn't vote the corrupt carpet bagger and scalawags out of office if the KKK was more successful at terrorism than black groups such as the Union League.
 

Kelly

Corporal
Joined
Mar 28, 2019
Messages
490
And more background reading?! Please, please, please, can't I just read the presidential powers as they are enumerated by Article 2, section 2? Or maybe some reference to the power to suspend Habeas Corpus by the Founders?
 
In spite of the inflammatory rhetoric in the opening post, the 37th Congress passed the Habeaus Corpus Act which agreed the president had acted lawfully in his prior suspension of the privilege of the Writ and even gave him more authority than he had previously used.

Vermont Senator Jacob Collamer, January 9, 1863:
We together with the House of Representatives, make the legislative department, and are in no way superior to him. Within the sphere of our jurisdiction we have the same rights as the Executive, and no more. The Executive is just as much clothed with authority, and bound in duty when called on, to give construction to the Constitution in the execution of it as we are, and his decision is just as binding as ours. I know there is a feeling—what it arises from I cannot say—that somehow or other the legislative department is superior to the other departments of the Government. I am sure, if each is kept within its regular sphere of jurisdiction, I do not know wherein; and it is not common courtesy for one department of this Government to say to another, “We say the Constitution means so and so, and we are infallible.” The judiciary, when the question arises before them in the proper form, decide the Constitution in the particular suit, and that is all there is in their decision. Now, sir, the President of the United States, in this great exigency of public affairs, in the recess of Congress, was called upon, as he viewed it, to give construction to that provision of the Constitution which declares that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except when, in a time of rebellion or invasion, the public safety requires it. The President did give construction to that clause, because those words evidently imply that in such a contingency as rebellion or invasion, when the public safety requires it, the privilege of the habeas corpus may be suspended. It does not say so in direct terms, but that is its necessary implication. He gave construction to that clause. He had the opinion of the legal counselor of the President, agreeing with the opinion of such a man as the ex-Attorney General, Mr. Johnson, agreeing with Mr. Biñney, agreeing with Chief Justice Parker, and many others that I might mention, leading men as statesmen, as civilians, and as lawyers in the nation.
Congressional Globe 3rd Session, 37th Congress, pg. 247
 

Kelly

Corporal
Joined
Mar 28, 2019
Messages
490
Golly, and all I want is for someone, anyone, to point to the power to suspend Habeas Corpus in Article II, section 2. Yet no one can do it. I can't help but wonder why. Oh, read this, and really, read that. But no one says read the enumerated powers of the president in Article II, section 2. I tell ya, it's the darnedest thing. Even Vermont Senator Jacob Collamer, in his desperate and transparent effort to provide cover for Lincoln's lawlessness, can't do it. I'm beginning to grow suspicious.
 
So what's the point? Most everyone agrees that Lincoln's action was unconstitutional. The argument is whether or not it was necessary as a measure to preserve the Union.
I disagree that most everyone agreed then or now that Lincoln's suspension was unconstitutional.
 

John S. Carter

First Sergeant
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
1,283
Actually, I believe, in historical terms the secession conventions were called to fulfill the slave states self assumed formula for secession, to fit their concept of how a state might legally secede from the Union. Was there a secession convention called, that did not vote for secession ?

Unfortunately Va. with deliberation and much forethought, seems to have decided that a Union without slavery, was not the Union they had helped to build and would have no part in its maintainence.
.Virginia was by 1860 as prepared as the sister states to depart the Union in order to maintain their rights as in regards to property as the slave was considered.The error was in the lack of preparation and there by the South by doing so became the Rebellious section ,followed by the attacks on Federal property solidified to the North that South must be finally subdued and to remove once and for all time the issue which had long caused hostility and bitterness ,slavery.As to Va.she acted as other Southern states ,none were willing to remain in a Union which was hostile to them as a people.Virgina wanted to remain but would not reject the bound which they had formed with her sisters and brothers of this Peculiar way of Life.Was there not other states which "DELIBERATED" longer than Va.?
 
Last edited:

Viper21

Sergeant Major
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Messages
2,237
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
There is a total non sequitur. Why are you trying to flee and change the subject matter? None of those men committed Treason, so please get back to the topic.
I'm not fleeing, or changing the subject matter. I stated, Lee was NEVER convicted of treason.

You said, "Many people have been guilty of crimes without being convicted of them"

I simply agreed with your statement, & gave some prominent examples. I could give more, perhaps better examples but, didn't want to get into modern politics :cool:
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
28,934
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
From the book, America's Constitution, by Akhil Reed Amar, chapter 3, Congressional Powers, pg. 122:

"Nothing in the habeas corpus clause, however, specified whether suspension require prior congressional approval. In 1861, Lincoln powerfully argued that the logic of events might at times demand temporary unilateral presidential action. Congress might not be in session when rebels attacked or invaders landed (as it was not when Fort Sumter came under unprovoked bombardment), and the rebellion or invasion might physically prevent Congress from assembling when summoned. As America's chief officer, always on deck and oath-bound to keep the constitutional ship afloat, a president could properly suspend habeas and take other emergency action so long as he received legislative authorization as soon as Congress could safely be convened.

Or so Lincoln argued in defense of a wide range of military measures he undertook before Congress could meet in July 1861. In his view, the placement of the nonsuspension clause in Congress's Article I rather than the president's Article II did not impliedly require prior congressional approval. Rather, the Article I location of the clause simply confirmed that ultimately the decision was Congress's. The president could merely act temporarily, as Congress's faithful, on-duty servant maintaining the pre-rebellion status quo precisely in order to preserve Congress's options"
 
Last edited:

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Was the issue slavery or was it the right to transport what they considered property across state lines into the territories which the North knew and feared the expansion of slavery power in Congress esp,when these territories became states.Virginia was by 1860 as prepared as the sister states to depart the Union in order to maintain their rights as in regards to property as the slave was considered.The error was in the lack of preparation and there by the South by doing so became the Rebellious section ,followed by the attacks on Federal property solidified to the North that South must be finally subdued and to remove once and for all time the issue which had long caused hostility and bitterness ,slavery
I'd add that some proposals appear to give the right to take slaves into any State including the Free States for indefinite times and to suppress abolition or even any antislavery speech. IMHO the slave States wanted extraordinary protections for slavery that simply were not acceptable to the North. IMHO the taking of slaves into Free States implies a national slave code to protect that property.

There are a lot of worms in the can.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads




(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Top