Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
But why would you want Guiteau to be the main character?
The man is endlessly fascinating and delusional. His life story is really unbelievable. He escaped death. Belong to a sex commune. Was a lawyer. Had a failed marriage.Thought he was friends with famous politicians. Was a professional con-man and had one of the trials of the century. Read through some of the trial manuscript here… it's unbelievable!http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/guiteau/guiteautranscript.html
That whole building is the mausoleum for Garfield?
Yep! It's a beautiful building, but again, not very well kept. But I believe it is the only Presidential coffin where there is pretty much public access.
Wow – were there any other people there specifically for the anniversary of his passing?
Not a soul in sight. The memorial is in rough shape. I'm from the area and am seriosuly considering looking into what I would have to do to help upkeep the memorial.
I think that had the South attempted a judicial approach it would have negated their stance. By taking it to the judicial they are saying that the Union has to grant them permission to seceed. That was the main tenant of the South's stance, that they were not required to ask for permission.I agree with Mr. Debs, it would have never passed the Supreme Court. And regardless of many of their southern leanings I do not see ho granting secession to the southern states would have benefitted the Supreme Court. Granting secession is paramount to them really having little power, and that is one thing the SCotUS was all about: their power. John Marshall set the standard with judicial Review basically saying “The law is what the judges say it is.” Granting secession limits their power and they WERE power and were not about to give it up.
Agreed 100%.
Is this right?It was my understanding that the majority actually survived (just barely). The number I was familiar with said something like 46 live, 41 die.
I put this together to simply show the question of succession, if it were to have reached the Supreme Court in lets say the year 1860, would have been almost assuredly stricken down. The Supreme Court in 1860:No To Succession:John McLean: He was strongly associated with the Republican Party making his vote pretty clear on the matter.John Catron: He owned slaves throughout his life but had directly stated being opposed to succession.Samuel Nelson: He is a tough call! But because he was from New York, it seems likely we know where his interests would lie. Robert Grier: While he voted often for Southern rights and against slave rights, he was highly supportive of Lincoln during the war effort and most likely would have never supported Southern succession. John Campbell: He was from the South, but strongly opposed succession. Nathan Clifford: He's another case of someone who didn't have an extremely clear opinion, but was from the North, so again I am assuming here. For Succession:James Wayne: He is a tough call, and could just as easily end up in the against column, but he did have deep seeded roots in the South. His vote for would be best case scenario for the South. Roger Taney: We all remember the Chief Justice of the Dred Scott decision. Again, perhaps we would have opposed succession, but his record indicates some real Southern tendencies. Peter Daniel: Died year of (1860), but usually sided with Southern interests. Again hard to call.All three “fors” could easily be in the other column, but I was trying to separate them a little.Final vote: 6-3 against succession. I just do not think it could have passed THIS Supreme Court.
This will be a motion picture release in the later half of 2012. Spielberg has been working on this project for almost 5 years (probably more).It is loosely based of the novel “Team of Rivals”
Revere was confronted by British soldiers it seems, and it seems to did notify them, but that was NOT his mission. His ride was suppose to be secret, and directed towards colonists. The original version she talks about (in what is a pretty jumbled statement) seems to be pretty off-base.Her second explanation was a bit more on the mark.
