I read a pair of Civil War related books with a legal focus and have a split decision. The topic of Uncivil Warriors: The Lawyers' Civil War was interesting, but the follow thru left a lot to be desired. It was somewhat worthwhile and the last chapter that provides a quick "epilogue" was rather interesting, covering more atypical ground than the previous ones on such questions like the Prize Cases. But, various things turned me off.
First, it was fairly one-sided, even if lawyers had more of a role on the Union side. For instance, works have covered civil liberty issues on the Confederate side too. The failure to even mention the Confederacy never had a Supreme Court underlines the paucity of the coverage. Second, the actual discussion was rough going repeatedly. One rather glaring example was the false statement that only Peter Daniel joined Taney's opinion in the Dred Scott case -- even without reading Justice Wayne's concurrence that expressly says he joins the whole thing, the average account mentions it. And, the author is not just a historian, but has a legal background as well. Expect more from the author in question.
The Lost Indictment of Robert E. Lee probably was a bit too long near the end [perhaps to fill in about 200 pages, but overall was more enjoyable. I admit that until fairly recently I was not even aware Lee and others (the book for some reason doesn't really go into the over thirty people indicted with Lee and some of the names are simply not familiar) was indicted by a federal grand jury (familiar with Jefferson Davis). The book also examines Robert E. Lee himself, myth v. more tainted reality, which I am more familiar with in past writings. Early on, it (citing a book I read) notes Lee had more troops at least at the beginning of his final battle than often assumed. But, this point is not really dwelt upon as it should be in at least an end note. The army's total lack of resources is relevant to the Lost Cause myth making. If Lee himself was misinformed (some confusion was involved in an important incident involving his family's slaves), that too would be useful to get a full sense of the thing.
Those who have a very low opinion of Andrew Johnson should appreciate at least his view on treason trials though in the end it ended with a whimper. The book puts much of the blame here of Chief Justice Chase, who it was felt needed to be involved as a presiding judge (the other Virginia judge was a radical Republican type many didn't think much of), but kept on finding a reason to delay things. Chase was a bit of historical missed chance -- he simply wasn't there long enough to put his stamp on the Supreme Court, other things restraining him as well. And, then Johnson's own impeachment trial did. Finally, it was decided though it was obvious treason, jury nullification was likely. And, the public probably didn't want the leaders to be executed either.
Basically, I hold to my sentiment, shared by many at the time, it just was unlikely you would get a conviction in Virginia by a civil treason trial or any sort of criminal trial really, except perhaps for some special reason. When a military tribunal approach was not available, convicting conspirators in the Lincoln assassination was not possible. Lee himself was involved in invasion of Maryland and Pennsylvania, so the most strict "where it happened" rule would surely make it possible to do so there.
===
The Supreme Court had less than 70 cases to hear for oral argument so it was expected that they would take a few more. On Friday, they granted three more, involving prescription drugs and other matters of some import. The government in each case agreed they should be taken for review, so it was an easy enough call. The breadth of what some call a "Lochner" First Amendment might be touched upon in a case with this question:
First, it was fairly one-sided, even if lawyers had more of a role on the Union side. For instance, works have covered civil liberty issues on the Confederate side too. The failure to even mention the Confederacy never had a Supreme Court underlines the paucity of the coverage. Second, the actual discussion was rough going repeatedly. One rather glaring example was the false statement that only Peter Daniel joined Taney's opinion in the Dred Scott case -- even without reading Justice Wayne's concurrence that expressly says he joins the whole thing, the average account mentions it. And, the author is not just a historian, but has a legal background as well. Expect more from the author in question.
The Lost Indictment of Robert E. Lee probably was a bit too long near the end [perhaps to fill in about 200 pages, but overall was more enjoyable. I admit that until fairly recently I was not even aware Lee and others (the book for some reason doesn't really go into the over thirty people indicted with Lee and some of the names are simply not familiar) was indicted by a federal grand jury (familiar with Jefferson Davis). The book also examines Robert E. Lee himself, myth v. more tainted reality, which I am more familiar with in past writings. Early on, it (citing a book I read) notes Lee had more troops at least at the beginning of his final battle than often assumed. But, this point is not really dwelt upon as it should be in at least an end note. The army's total lack of resources is relevant to the Lost Cause myth making. If Lee himself was misinformed (some confusion was involved in an important incident involving his family's slaves), that too would be useful to get a full sense of the thing.
Those who have a very low opinion of Andrew Johnson should appreciate at least his view on treason trials though in the end it ended with a whimper. The book puts much of the blame here of Chief Justice Chase, who it was felt needed to be involved as a presiding judge (the other Virginia judge was a radical Republican type many didn't think much of), but kept on finding a reason to delay things. Chase was a bit of historical missed chance -- he simply wasn't there long enough to put his stamp on the Supreme Court, other things restraining him as well. And, then Johnson's own impeachment trial did. Finally, it was decided though it was obvious treason, jury nullification was likely. And, the public probably didn't want the leaders to be executed either.
Basically, I hold to my sentiment, shared by many at the time, it just was unlikely you would get a conviction in Virginia by a civil treason trial or any sort of criminal trial really, except perhaps for some special reason. When a military tribunal approach was not available, convicting conspirators in the Lincoln assassination was not possible. Lee himself was involved in invasion of Maryland and Pennsylvania, so the most strict "where it happened" rule would surely make it possible to do so there.
Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, andforbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so manyguards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by everymember of the Confederacy at will. It was intended for “perpetual union,” so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution, or the consent of all the people inconvention assembled.The book tosses in some of those interesting touches that are intriguing. This is from a letter from Lee in January 1861, his view changing later on. Also, the very end covers the dedication of a gigantic Lee statute in 1890. The negative response was also covered, including a local black journalist who also served in the Richmond City Council. Looking it up, Richmond: The Story of a City notes this was a thing into the 1890s. I was aware of limited black political involvement in certain Southern states that late, but was not aware that there was notable black involvement in the very capital of the Confederacy. It suggests that history of disenfranchisement was not totally a given if that late in the day blacks could serve in the government.
===
The Supreme Court had less than 70 cases to hear for oral argument so it was expected that they would take a few more. On Friday, they granted three more, involving prescription drugs and other matters of some import. The government in each case agreed they should be taken for review, so it was an easy enough call. The breadth of what some call a "Lochner" First Amendment might be touched upon in a case with this question:
Whether the government-debt exception to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991’s automated-call restriction violates the First Amendment, and whether the proper remedy for any constitutional violation is to sever the exception from the remainder of the statute.The first conference of the new decade is followed by the first order day and two weeks of oral arguments. The Order List is long but doesn't seem like much significant happened with no separate opinions. My usual lament holds: a lot still is there and an Explainer (see Chief Roberts report on judicial assistance of civics understating) would help a lot for the average reader. A hot button case will be heard next week involving government aid to religious schools. Will Roberts have some more responsibilities soon?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!