Re: Famous Aviator Calls For Bush/Cheney Impeachment

On Jan 19, 2:27 am, Walt <Walterm...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 18, 5:44 pm, Fred the Red Shirt <fredfigh...@xxxxxxxxxxx>

On Jan 18, 9:48 pm, Walt <Walterm...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 18, 3:12 pm, Fred the Red Shirt <fredfigh...@xxxxxxxxxxx>


I don't that Jackson did anything particularly unconstitutional.
Maybe he did.

His criminal activities including stealing and destroying US mail.

He also infamously continues with the deportation of the Cherokee
nation, in open defiance of an injunction issued by the USSC.

Lincoln of course has been called every name in the book by everyone
from neo-confederates to modern black writers.

The one thing that Lincoln did that was clearly outside his
constitutional purview was to disburse monies from the treasury
between April and July in 1861.

Lincoln did misjudge the true Union sentiment in the south (it was
almost non-existent) and it may be that he thought he could set
everything aright before the Congress convened in the special session
he asked for on July 4, 1861.

Almost nonexistent? More than 100,000 Southerners fought
on the Union side--that doesn't count those from the border
states of Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri that did not secede,
but might well have had Lincoln not disbanded or imprisoned
their legislators, nor does it count those from the newly formed
state of West Virginia, or the roughly 100,000 freedmen, mostly
born in the Southern States who enlisted.

I was careful to say "true" Union sentiment. Sherman, for one, had a
big "bah, humbug" on those who professed Union sentiment but did
nothing to fight for the Union.

And I was careful to criticiz only the claim that
true Union sentiment was almost nonexistent,

Those 100,000 plus Southerners who took up
arms for the Union did SOMETHING more than
nothing to fight for the Union, don't you agree?


Nelson Current

Further, that counts only the white Southerners and
does not count any of the 180,000 or so Negro troops
raised in the North, many of whom were born in the
South and went North before the war, or Negro troops
raised in the South from among freed slaves.

If we guesstimate that about half of those Negro
troops were either displaced Southerners or were
still living in the South when recruited then we see
that at elast 15% of the Southerners who fought in
the Civil War fought for the Union.

If there had been any big resevoir of -true- Union
sentiment in the southern states, there would
have been no rebellion.

As you know, you wrote that pro-Union
sentiment was almost non-existent.

Whether or not 15% of those Southerners
willing to fight constitute a "big resevoir"
or not is not the issue.

Of course things didn't work out that way.

But other actions of Lincoln, such as suspending the Writ of Habeas
Corpus have never been definitivey decided.

Lincoln himself admitted that he had no authority to do so.
Congress, which did have the authority, mooted the issue
by exercising it.

I'd like to see your evidence of that.

His own words.

Mr. Lincoln, as always, can speak for himself:

"Ours is a case of Rebellion--so called
by the resolutions before me--in fact, a
clear, flagrant, and gigantic case of Rebellion;
and the provision of the constitution that
"The previlege of the writ of Habeas Corpus
shall not be suspended, unless when in cases
of Rebellion or Invasion, the public Safety may
require it" is the provision which specially applies
to our present case. This provision plainly
attests the understanding of those who made
the constitution that ordinary courts of justice
are inadequate to "cases of Rebellion"--
attests their purpose that in such cases, men
may be held in custody whom the courts acting
on ordinary rules, would discharge. Habeas
Corpus, does not discharge men who are proved
to be guilty of defined crime; and its suspension
is allowed by the constitution on purpose
that, men may be arrested and held, who can
not be proved to be guilty of defined crime, "
when, in cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public
Safety may require it."

Upon reviewing the arguments prepared for
him on the subject by attorney general Edward
Bates, possibly an early draft of what you quoted
above, Lincoln is said to have remarked that it
was an argument that could only convince a true
believer. I wasn't able to track that down to a
source, but found other writings I will quote later.

The argument you quote is plainly disingenuous
as to the matter of authority.

The prohibition of, and exceptions to that prohibition
are in the First Article which creates and empowers
the Congress, not in the second which creates and
empowers the Presidency. It has been argued that
it was put there as a matter of form, not of substance
but if so, then there would be no guidance whatsoever
as to whom was empowered to suspend it. If the
President was permitted to suspend it then why not
also the courts?

Further, he purpose of the Great Writ is to protect
individuals from oppression by the executive
(originally the King). To allow the executive to
suspend it defeats that purpose.

Besides, the matter was already settled law.
Jefferson had attempted to suspend Habeas
for alleged conspirators in Aaron' Burr's supposed
Secession/Rebellion plot. The USSC (under
John Marshall, no less) ruled against Jefferson
who then asked the Congress to suspend Habeas
and was rebuffed there as well.

The remainder of Lincoln's argument was not
a claim to legitimate authority at all. It was
argument for the necessity of the suspension
as we see below.

This is precisely our present case--a case
of Rebellion, wherein the public Safety does
require the suspension. Indeed, arrests by
process of courts, and arrests in cases of
rebellion, do not proceed altogether upon
the same basis. The former is directed at
the small per centage of ordinary and continuous
perpetration of crime; while the latter is directed
at sudden and extensive uprisings against the
government, which, at most, will succeed or
fail, in no great length of time. In the latter
case, arrests are made, not so much for what
has been done, as for what probably would
be done. The latter is more
for the preventive, and less for the vindictive,
than the former. In such cases the purposes
of men are much more easily understood, than
in cases of ordinary crime. The man who stands
by and says nothing,
when the peril of his government is discussed,
can not be misunderstood. If not hindered, he
is sure to help the enemy. Much
more, if he talks ambiguously--talks for his
country with "buts" and "ifs" and "ands." Of how
little value the constitutional provision I
have quoted will be rendered, if arrests shall
never be made until defined crimes shall have
been committed, may be illustrated by a few
notable examples. Gen. John C. Breckienridge,
Gen. Robert E. Lee, Gen. Joseph E. Johnston,
Gen. John B. Magruder, Gen. William B. Preston,
Gen. Simon B. Buckner, and Comodore [Franklin]
Buchanan, now occupying the very highest places
in the rebel war service, were all within the
power of the government since the rebellion
began, and were nearly as well known to be
traitors then as now. Unquestionably if we had
seized and held them, the insurgent cause would
be much weaker. But no one of them had then
committed any crime defined in the law. Every
one of them if arrested would have been discharged
on Habeas Corpus, were the writ allowed to
operate. In view of these and similar cases, I think
the time not unlikely to come when I shall be
blamed for having made too few arrests rather
than too many."

That is indeed an excellent argument for
the necessity of the suspension but not
one word of it challenges the settled law
to the effect that it was the sole authority
of the Congress to do so.

Lincoln -certainly- felt that he had the power
as president to suspend the Writ.

On this point we agree. However Lincoln
admitted that he had not the authority to
suspend the Writ:

In his address to the Congress on July 4, 1861
Lincoln said,

"The whole of the laws which were required
to be faithfully executed, were being resisted,
and failing of execution, in nearly one-third of
the States. Must they be allowed to finally fail
of execution? [A]re all the laws, but one,
to go unexecuted, and the government itself
go to pieces, lest that one be violated?"

[4:429 , The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln
(New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press

Plainly Lincoln argued that it was better that he
violate the Constitution, than to allow the rebellion
to spread and strengthen. It was an argument
from necessity, not from authority. I agree with

The Congress eventually suspended Habeas,
in the Habeas Corpus, Act of March 3, 1863.
IMHO, it should have done so much sooner.