Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Cutting off Utah Territory from Mail Service


USU78

Recommended Posts

...

Brigham admitted to treason when he accepted Buchanan's pardon.

Which proves me to me right here and now you are full of baloney. I have read Brighams speech on that occasion and it appears you have not. Anyone with half a brain could read that speech and come across with a DIFFERENT conclusion than what you have advanced. You have either not read the speech or if you have you are HIDING* the true facts from everyone about the speech. Either way you are not impressing me in the slightest. In fact your lack of competent historical analysis is showing.

*Typical of obsessive anti-mormons

Link to comment
There was no "pardon" although I have used the term as a shortcut in the past. It was a blanket presidential amnesty and required no oath of affirmation to secure its benefits.

Then how do you explain Governor Cumming's proclamation of acceptance and effective operation of Buchanan's Proclamation of Pardon on June 14, 1858 (quoted in an above post)? According to B.H. Roberts, the pardon is housed in House Executive Documents, 35th Congress, 2nd Session, vol. II, part II, pages 119-21. Cumming's proclamation also states that "the proffered pardon was accepted, with the presecribed terms of [buchanan's] proclamation, by the citizens of Utah." The "prescribed terms" included Utahns' guilt of treason and sedition; when the pardon was accepted by BY, GAS and the rest, this acceptance was their acknowlegement of their treason and sedition (even though they objected to these terms).

Link to comment
I have read Brighams speech on that occasion and it appears you have not. Anyone with half a brain could read that speech and come across with a DIFFERENT conclusion than what you have advanced. You have either not read the speech or if you have you are HIDING* the true facts from everyone about the speech.

I'm not saying BY agreed that he committed treason and sedition (I stated above that he objected to this, even though he admitted to the allegation that army trains were burned and army cattle scattered), but by accepting the pardon he accepted the "prescribed terms" of the pardon, which included his guilt of treason and sedition. To accept (and receive the benefits) of the pardon, BY had to accept it in full, which he did (despite his protests as to its contents). Thus, while BY may have personally disagreed that he committed treason and sedition, he acceptance of the pardon was his legal admission that he committed the acts set out in the pardon. Talk about "having your cake and eating it, too."

Link to comment

Everything I've seen says that Buchanon issued a "General Pardon" which encompassed all the residents of Utah. What type of "acceptance" do you believe was necessary for this action to be legitimate.

You seem to imply that Young actually signed a document and "admitted" his guilt, but I see no evidence of that. What I see is that Buchanon was forced to issue the amnesty to cover his own butt. The pardon was valid whether Young "accepted" it or not.

C.I.

Link to comment
Everything I've seen says that Buchanon issued a "General Pardon" which encompassed all the residents of Utah. What type of "acceptance" do you believe was necessary for this action to be legitimate.

You seem to imply that Young actually signed a document and "admitted" his guilt, but I see no evidence of that. What I see is that Buchanon was forced to issue the amnesty to cover his own butt. The pardon was valid whether Young "accepted" it or not.

Brigham Young, as ex-Governor, dealt directly with the Peace Commission sent by Buchanan to Utah, which ended when Brigham Young and other Church leaders expressly accepted Buchanan's pardon on behalf of themselves and Utah citizens. BY, GAS and others denied the factual statements in the Proclamation of Pardon, except for burning army trains and scattering army cattle, but accepted the pardon with "its prescribed terms" (as decreed by Cumming), meaning they accepted the pardon as written.

BY's personal acceptance of the pardon is evidenced by his speech on June 12, 1858, before the Peace Commission; BY was indignant as to the pardon's factual statements, but swallowed his pride and accepted it:

"As to the gentlemen Commissioners, they have no power to investigate the past, but [are] to inquire if we will submit to the Constitution and laws of the United States. We always have, and always expect to. I have no character [i.e. reputation] -- no pride to gratify -- no vanity to please. If a man comes from the moon and says he will pardon me for kicking him in the moon yesterday, I don't care about it, I'll accept of his pardon. It don't affect me one way or the other." (Roberts, Comprehensive History, vol. IV, p. 433) (bold mine for emphasis).

And Brigham Young, as "ex-Governor," personally certified the accuracy of the official minutes of the conference between the Peace Commission and "Brigham Young and other Mormon Church leaders;" these minutes included the following:

"Ex-Governor Young and others state that they were and always had ever been attached to the Constitution and government of the United States, and desired to live in peach and quiet under the government; they denied all the charges that had been made against them, except the burning of the army trains and driving off the cattle from the army last fall; that they admitted, and for that they accepted the president's pardon; they claimed that they were more ardently attached to the Constitution of the United States than others who made charges against them." (Roberts, p. 438) (bold mine for emphasis).

The above led to Governor Cumming's proclaiming on July 14, 1858, that the "proferred pardon was accepted, with the prescribed terms of the proclamation, by the citizens of Utah." (Roberts, p. 440) (bold mine for emphasis).

I agree with you that BY had little choice but to accept the terms of the pardon, even though he disagreed with most the statements therein, and so objected, but in the end he did accept it by its unmodified terms. And since those terms branded him guilty of treason and sedition, his acceptance is his legal agreement with what the pardon says.

Link to comment
The "pardon" was a cynical act of fannycovering by a corrupt and blundering toady of Southern Senators.

Was BY not protected by the pardon from prosecution? Was the pardon not legal?

BY didn't care how Buck covered his own fanny for his blunder.

He admitted to nothing. He accepted nothing.

Buck needed to be able to justify post hoc what he had done. He came up with this bit of malarky. Nobody was fooled. He ended up getting laughed out of office.

Link to comment

I'm not sure what you are saying, Rollo, so I'll cut you a little slack here, but you say that Young "admitted" what are you referring to.

Your own reference states:

Ex-Governor Young and others state that they were and always had ever been attached to the Constitution and government of the United States, and desired to live in peach and quiet under the government; they denied all the charges that had been made against them, except the burning of the army trains and driving off the cattle from the army last fall; that they admitted, and for that they accepted the president's pardon; they claimed that they were more ardently attached to the Constitution of the United States than others who made charges against them." (Roberts, p. 438) (bold mine for emphasis).

Thus, it appears to me that you are stating too broadly. Young admitted only to the actions taken against the army trains and accepted the pardon only as it pertained to those actions. He did not accept it as it pertained to any other accusations.

My own review of the relevant case law of the era leads me to believe that there is some question as to whether or not Young's actions would have qualified as "treason". Then again, it appears to me that Young may have made the same decisions that defendants have been make for a very long time: take the easy settlement which is much cheaper than the legal fight.

C.I.

Link to comment

People, you probably don't have to be reminded, but Rollo's mind is made up. You can't convince him with facts or logic. And he is even in denial about how he tries to spin his interpretation.

Link to comment
Thus, it appears to me that you are stating too broadly. Young admitted only to the actions taken against the army trains and accepted the pardon only as it pertained to those actions. He did not accept it as it pertained to any other accusations.

You're reading from the "minutes," not the operative documents. Yes, Brigham (and the others) denied the factual allegations and legal conclusions in Buchanan's Proclamation of Pardon, admitting only to the burning of the trains and scattering cattle (of course, this was his personal reason for accepting the pardon), but he accepted THE pardon nonetheless. Brigham could not accept only part of the pardon, or only the parts he agreed with -- not one word of the pardon proclamation was ever changed or modified; it was accepted in toto. Thus, Governor Cumming's decree that the "proffered pardon was accepted, with the precribed terms of the proclamation." And what were some of the "prescribed terms of the proclamation"? That Brigham and others were guilty of treason and sedition. Thus, when Brigham "accepted" the pardon, he accepted all of it (even if he disagreed with it); thus, his legal admission (regardless of personal disagreement) that he was guilty of treason and sedition.

Link to comment
Thus, it appears to me that you are stating too broadly.  Young admitted only to the actions taken against the army trains and accepted the pardon only as it pertained to those actions.   He did not accept it as it pertained to any other accusations.

You're reading from the "minutes," not the operative documents. Yes, Brigham (and the others) denied the factual allegations and legal conclusions in Buchanan's Proclamation of Pardon, admitting only to the burning of the trains and scattering cattle (of course, this was his personal reason for accepting the pardon), but he accepted THE pardon nonetheless. Brigham could not accept only part of the pardon, or only the parts he agreed with -- not one word of the pardon proclamation was ever changed or modified; it was accepted in toto. Thus, Governor Cumming's decree that the "proffered pardon was accepted, with the precribed terms of the proclamation." And what were some of the "prescribed terms of the proclamation"? That Brigham and others were guilty of treason and sedition. Thus, when Brigham "accepted" the pardon, he accepted all of it (even if he disagreed with it); thus, his legal admission (regardless of personal disagreement) that he was guilty of treason and sedition.

RT, how does one go about accepting a pardon from the CinC?

Does one sign a paper?

Does one sing a song?

Does one dress in a diaper and dance around the DC mall singing "I'm a Little Teapot?"

A pardon, RT, is an act by the chief executive. Nothing must be done to accept or reject it. If the person pardoned were to show up at the County Jail demanding to be arrested and imprisoned, he would indeed be imprisoned, but only in the appropriate mental health facility.

BY didn't have to do anything to have the pardon be effective other than stand there.

Link to comment
To accept (and receive the benefits) of the pardon, BY had to accept it in full, which he did (despite his protests as to its contents).

This is where we disagree.

You appear to be equating a "pardon" with a "plea bargain."

When a defendant who is actually charged with a crime* chooses to cop a plea rather than face a jury the defendant is brought before a judge who explains the terms of the agreement and explicity tells the defendant that by pleading guilty he is admitting to guilt. If the defendant refuses to acknowledge his guilt, the plea is nullified.

That is not the case here. As Mr. Crockett has already pointed out, "There was no "pardon" . . .It was a blanket presidential amnesty and required no oath of affirmation to secure its benefits.

Had such an oath been required, then Brigham's acceptance of only part of the "charges" would have nullified the deal. An amnesty requires nothing on the part of its recipients. If the president issues an amnesty then your are "pardoned" (using the shortcut term as Robert called it) and that's all there is to it.

Even today if a prisoner were to reject a presidential pardon and the president were to grant it anyway, the prisioners rejection has no legal biding effect upon the efficacy of the pardon.

C.I.

P.S. I realize that Gov. Cummings stated that "the people of Utah" had accepted the pardon, but I'm fairly sure he wasn't speaking in legal terms of a required action on the part of the "people of Utah." In fact, he could not have been since no such legal action was required.

*I.E. a formal indictment has been issued by a grand jury or an information has been issued and preliminary hearing held.

Link to comment
If you refuse to accept it, let the consquences fall upon your head. But I conjure you to pause deliberately and reflect well, before you reject this tender of peach and good will." (Roberts, Comprehensive History, p. 427).

"Peach" and good will? What was it, a fruit basket?

The acceptance of the amnesty in this case did not, and indeed could not, have included an acknowledgement of guilt because no official indictments were ever brought.

That has hugely significance from a legal standpoint. You cannot plead guilty or be found guilty of a crime for which you have never been charged. It simply cannot happen. So, you can continue with your smug "this is too easy" attitude, but it simply shows your ignorance of the legal process and its requirements.

C.I.

edited to fix a typo.

Edited again to add:

Moreover, the notion that the recipient must plead "guilty" prior to receiving the pardon is counterfactual to how a pardon operates. As the U.S. Supreme Court has noted,

A pardon reaches both the punishment prescribed for the offence and the guilt of the offender; and when the pardon is full, it releases the punishment and blots out of existence the guilt, so that in the eye of the law the offender is as innocent as if he had never committed the offence. -- Ex parte Garland, 71 U.S. 333 (1866).

Thus it would be silly to have the accused admit guilt as a preface to receiving a pardon which serves the purpose of blotting it out.

Link to comment
That is not the case here. As Mr. Crockett has already pointed out, "There was no "pardon" . . .It was a blanket presidential amnesty and required no oath of affirmation to secure its benefits.

Had such an oath been required, then Brigham's acceptance of only part of the "charges" would have nullified the deal. An amnesty requires nothing on the part of its recipients. If the president issues an amnesty then your are "pardoned" (using the shortcut term as Robert called it) and that's all there is to it.

What can be in a presidential pardon is pretty broad. In this case, the proclamation encompassing the pardon (and its "prescribed terms" accepted) was very detailed and asserted statements of guilt; not all pardons are like this. See my quote above from the proclamation itself that made clear that the pardon was an offer that could be accepted only upon certain conditions. This BY and GAS did before the Peace Commission (albeit under protest as to some facts), leading Cumming to say that "the proferred pardon was accepted, with the prescribed terms of the proclamation."

While a vocal oath may not have been required (or given), the proclamation's language clearly sets forth a condition of future loyalty to the U.S. government.

Link to comment
While a vocal oath may not have been required (or given), the proclamation's language clearly sets forth a condition of future loyalty to the U.S. government.

Agreed. But you are still missing the point. Before, you seem to be arguing that the condition of the pardon was that Young had to admit his guilt. That cannot be true as he was never charged. If that had been a term, then the amnesty could not have gone into effect because Young rejected major parts of it.

Now, you suggest that the only condition was future loyalty to the U.S. I agree with that and find that term to be largely self-executing. The only way that the President could have or would have reneged the deal would have been if Young et al., undertook some action which could legally be construed as disloyalty to the U.S. Even had Young not admitted to any of the claims (they weren't charges) made in the pardon it still would have operated as a general pardon irregardless of Young's personal acceptance or rejection of it.

C.I.

Link to comment
The acceptance of the amnesty in this case did not, and indeed could not, have included an acknowledgement of guilt because no official indictments were ever brought.

That has hugely significance from a legal standpoint. You cannot plead guilty or be found guilty of a crime for which you have never been charged. It simply cannot happen.

Sounds like lawyer hair-splitting to me.

A grant of amnesty does not forgive one's crimes, it only forgets them. BY and the others could commit treason without an indictment, just as a president could pardon them before any indictment. The proclamation declared that BY's actions were treasonous; BY accepted the proclamation as written; thus, BY (whether he agreed or disagreed with what the proclamation said) admitted he committed treason, for which he was now receiving a pardon.

You lawyers can't see the forest for the trees.

Link to comment
BY accepted the proclamation as written

Did he? How, exactly was he to have accepted it?

There are no reports of BY in a diaper on the mall singing "I'm a Little Teapot," so he must not have "accepted it," whatever that's supposed to mean.

Hiding behind "poisoning the well" by declaring all statements by lawyers as unacceptable on this point is to demonstrate a profound weakness of thought and argument, RT.

Link to comment
Before, you seem to be arguing that the condition of the pardon was that Young had to admit his guilt. That cannot be true as he was never charged. If that had been a term, then the amnesty could not have gone into effect because Young rejected major parts of it.

Now, you suggest that the only condition was future loyalty to the U.S. I agree with that and find that term to be largely self-executing. The only way that the President could have or would have reneged the deal would have been if Young et al., undertook some action which could legally be construed as disloyalty to the U.S. Even had Young not admitted to any of the claims (they weren't charges) made in the pardon it still would have operated as a general pardon irregardless of Young's personal acceptance or rejection of it.

In order to accept the pardon, BY had to accept the proclamation in full (apparently neither the president, nor the Peace Commission, nor the new governor, were willing to let BY accept only part of the proclamation of pardon); this proclamation asserted that BY had committed treason; BY objected to this, but in the end, accepted the proclamation as written in full; thus, by accepting the proclamation in full, BY also accepted the statements in the proclamation of his treason.

Perhaps the compromise here is to say BY did not admit to the statutory crime of treason, but accepted statements that his actions constituted treason (not in the statutory legal sense, but under a general understanding and definition of treason)?

Link to comment
Sounds like lawyer hair-splitting to me. 

Just because you can't grasp the signficance of the argument doesn't mean it isn't valid. You blithe dismissal makes me wonder if we haven't simply moved this discussion to a point beyond your ability to participate in it in a coherent fashion.

A grant of amnesty does not forgive one's crimes, it only forgets them.

I'm not sure what this mean. A grant of amnesty (pardon) certainly does "forgive" one crimes.

A pardon reaches both the punishment prescribed for the offence and the guilt of the offender; and when the pardon is full, it releases the punishment and blots out of existence the guilt, so that in the eye of the law the offender is as innocent as if he had never committed the offence.

A pardon amensty makes it as if the accused crime never occured, thus there is nothing to be forgiven.

BY and the others could commit treason without an indictment, just as a president could pardon them before any indictment.

C'mon, if you are going to argue this then do it with some precision. Of course Young could commit treason without an indictment, but he could not plead guilty to a charge of treason without one.

That's just a simple legal fact.

The proclamation declared that BY's actions were treasonous;

And? The proclimation is not a charging document such as an indictment or an information. It simply lays out the offense which might have been charged were it not for the amnesty.

BY accepted the proclamation as written;

BY couldn't have amended it if he'd wanted to. The pardon power in plenary and rests solely with the President.

thus, BY (whether he agreed or disagreed with what the proclamation said) admitted he committed treason, for which he was now receiving a pardon.

Again, a legal and factual impossibility.

You lawyers can't see the forest for the trees.

And of course you with your hours of legal training can see it all? I'm sure, Rollo, that you've dug in your heels and have no intention of budging, that's fine. I'm just showing you the legal shortcomings of your argument. That you haven't the capacity to respond coherently is not my problem.

C.I.

Link to comment
Before, you seem to be arguing that the condition of the pardon was that Young had to admit his guilt.  That cannot be true as he was never charged.  If that had been a term, then the amnesty could not have gone into effect because Young rejected major parts of it.

Now, you suggest that the only condition was future loyalty to the U.S.  I agree with that and find that term to be largely self-executing.  The only way that the President could have or would have reneged the deal would have been if Young et al., undertook some action which could legally be construed as disloyalty to the U.S.  Even had Young not admitted to any of the claims (they weren't charges) made in the pardon it still would have operated as a general pardon irregardless of Young's personal acceptance or rejection of it.

In order to accept the pardon, BY had to accept the proclamation in full (apparently neither the president, nor the Peace Commission, nor the new governor, were willing to let BY accept only part of the proclamation of pardon); this proclamation asserted that BY had committed treason; BY objected to this, but in the end, accepted the proclamation as written in full; thus, by accepting the proclamation in full, BY also accepted the statements in the proclamation of his treason.

Perhaps the compromise here is to say BY did not admit to the statutory crime of treason, but accepted statements that his actions constituted treason (not in the statutory legal sense, but under a general understanding and definition of treason)?

A distortion should never be compromised with.

There is no acceptance required in order for a pardon to be in effect. It cannot be later rescinded, notwithstanding what somebody intimated in this thread.

Kinda like grace, you know?

Link to comment
There are no reports of BY in a diaper on the mall singing "I'm a Little Teapot," so he must not have "accepted it," whatever that's supposed to mean.

Hiding behind "poisoning the well" by declaring all statements by lawyers as unacceptable on this point is to demonstrate a profound weakness of thought and argument, RT.

Read the above posts about Brigham's acceptance of the Proclamation of Pardon. Sometimes it can be like pulling teeth with you.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...