Cutting off Utah Territory from Mail Service

[USU78]

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.

Acceptance . . . what does it mean? What is accepted? What is BY to do to accept, if acceptance is a condition? Is acceptance a condition? Is it rescindable?

Fuzzy, fuzzy thinking.

[Rollo Tomasi]

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.

...

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

The problem is your inability (or refusal) to see the real issue, instead of the technical arguments that 3 years of law school bought you.

An example of amnesty forgetting but not forgiving: when Jimmy Carter granted amnesty to those who evaded the draft during Vietnam, he said their crimes were not forgiven (as they would be in a pardon), only forgotten. Moore, Pardons: Justice, Mercy, and the Public Interest, pp. 18-19 (1989).

[Rollo Tomasi]

There is no acceptance required in order for a pardon to be in effect.

It is established law (at least since 1855) that presidential pardons can be conditional. Ex parte Wells, 59 U.S. 307 (1855).

[Rollo Tomasi]

Acceptance . . . what does it mean? What is accepted? What is BY to do to accept, if acceptance is a condition? Is acceptance a condition?

In this case it was enough for Brigham Young to tell the Peace Commissioners that he accepted.

[gtaggart]

Rollo, would you mind laying out the "prescribed terms" of the pardon for me? Exactly where did the President state that Brigham Young had to acknowledge that he had committed sedition and treason in order to receive the pardon? I know Buchanan alleged sedition and treason, but where did he say the pardon was contingent on Brigham and other acknowledging such?

With baited breath.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Rollo, would you mind laying out the "prescribed terms" of the pardon for me?  Exactly where did the President state that Brigham Young had to acknowledge that he had committed sedition and treason in order to receive the pardon?  I know Buchanan alleged sedition and treason, but where did he say the pardon was contingent on Brigham and other acknowledging such?

With baited breath.

The phrase "prescribed terms" relates to the Proclamation, which makes it clear the pardon is offered based on acceptance. See my quotes above were I give the relevant parts.

[gtaggart]

Rollo, would you mind laying out the "prescribed terms" of the pardon for me?  Exactly where did the President state that Brigham Young had to acknowledge that he had committed sedition and treason in order to receive the pardon?  I know Buchanan alleged sedition and treason, but where did he say the pardon was contingent on Brigham and other acknowledging such?

With baited breath.

The phrase "prescribed terms" relates to the Proclamation, which makes it clear the pardon is offered based on acceptance. See my quotes above were I give the relevant parts.

I've read what you've posted before, but that doesn't answer my question. Where does it say that before Brigham or others can be pardoned, they must acknowledge sedition and treason? Yes, I know that Buchanan blathers on and on about sedition and treason, but where are the conditions you are trumpeting?

[Programmer]

... 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."

Talk about acting like a lawyer. If I were you I would quit being so scornful of lawyers, and act like a grownup and leave that issue alone.

Your premise that Brigham's "acceptance of the pardon was his legal admission that he committed the acts... bla bla bla" is totally without foundation. No, Brighams acceptance of the pardon was his acceptance of the pardon, nothing more except to gain peace. If it was signed and documented with 10 seals, and written on gold paper it wouldn't make any difference: The charges the Saints were originally charged with, which caused the army to be sent in the first place, were completely untrue.

Regarding your quote on page 438:

Who cares if Brigham Young accepted responsibility for burning wagon trains? That's not what the real issue was about anyways, and is totally tangential to the issue.

It was funny however to see you did pull out the important quote on Page 433. However, the portion you quoted doesn't support your position. According to Brighams analogy, if he was accused of kicking the man on the moon, and the man on the moon offered him a pardon, then Brighams acceptance of the moon man's pardon means he was guilty? NO, the very PREMISE of the Brigham's analogy states that he is completely innocent of the accusations. It is impossible to kick anyone on the moon, let alone anything more than about 10 feet off the ground! Your illogic is the logic that belongs on the far side of the moon.

Trying to now infer guilt from the mere act of accepting a pardon or compromising to keep the peace is far short of the proof you are desperately grasping for. You cannot make accepting of the pardon stick for anything accept burning wagon trains. Acceptence of that does not mean acceptance of the other "42" false charges including treason. You can't eat your cake and have it to.

[Confidential Informant]

The problem is your inability (or refusal) to see the real issue, instead of the technical arguments that 3 years of law school bought you.

Funny how you like to quote the law then simply disregard it as "technical arguments" when it is shown to disagree with you. It is more than my mere three years of law school. I've spent a good deal of time studying and writing on the exectuive pardon power. At least enough to be conversant in the particulars of it. It is more than apparent from our discussion here that you are not.

An example of amnesty forgetting but not forgiving: when Jimmy Carter granted amnesty to those who evaded the draft during Vietnam, he said their crimes were not forgiven (as they would be in a pardon), only forgotten.

[Confidential Informant]

There is no acceptance required in order for a pardon to be in effect.

It is established law (at least since 1855) that presidential pardons can be conditional. Ex parte Wells, 59 U.S. 307 (1855).

1. This was not a pardon, this was a general amnesty.

2. The only "condition" was future loyalty to the U.S. Lincoln made the same offer to Confederate soldiers at the end of the Civil War.

C.I.

[Rollo Tomasi]

I've read what you've posted before, but that doesn't answer my question. Where does it say that before Brigham or others can be pardoned, they must acknowledge sedition and treason? Yes, I know that Buchanan blathers on and on about sedition and treason, but where are the conditions you are trumpeting?

As I said before, BY had to accept the proclamation as written (not just the parts he agreed with) in order to get the pardon. Once he accepted the proclamation and its "prescribed terms" (as Cumming decreed), Brigham accepted all the statements in the proclamation, including his treason.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Your premise that Brigham's "acceptance of the pardon was his legal admission that he committed the acts... bla bla bla" is totally without foundation. No, Brighams acceptance of the pardon was his acceptance of the pardon, nothing more except to gain peace.

Read Cumming's decree -- Brigham accepted the "proffered proclamation ... with the prescribed terms of the proclamation." Brigham could have meant whatever he wanted when he accepted, he even could have crossed his fingers behind his back ... but in the annals of U.S. records, he acknowledged his treason, for which he was pardoned.

[Stormin' Mormon]

"And being anxious to save the effusion of blood, and to avoid the indiscriminate punishment of a whole people, for crimes of which it is not probable that all are equally guilty, I offer now a full and free pardon to all who will submit themselves to the authority of the federal government. 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 peace and good will." (Roberts, Comprehensive History, p. 427).

No, Rollo.

According to your own quote there was only one terms or conditions of the pardon. That condition was the submission to federal authority. There was no condition about the need for the Pardon to be "accepted" in order to be valid. I think that is what qtaggart is asking. Where does this quote even imply that Young's acceptance or rejection of the pardon was a condition?

[Rollo Tomasi]

Amnesty is the abolition and forgetfulness of the offense; pardon is forgiveness. Garrison v. U.S., 30 Ct. Cl. 272 (emphasis added).

C.I.

P.S. Still think this is so easy?

This is exactly what I said before (and Jimmy Carter before me). Amnesty deals with "forgetfulness," not "forgiveness" of a crime. BY's treason, therefore, was forgotten, NOT forgiven.

How many years have you been studying pardons? Obviously not enough ....

[Rollo Tomasi]

1. This was not a pardon, this was a general amnesty.

2. The only "condition" was future loyalty to the U.S. Lincoln made the same offer to Confederate soldiers at the end of the Civil War.

Amnesty is a "general pardon." The priniciple is the same -- whether you call it "amnesty" or "pardon," it can be conditional.

Loyalty was a condition, as I've always said. But the pardon here was an offer in the form of a proclamation that had to be accepted (meeting the conditions). This, BY did in full, as evidenced by Cumming's decree.

[Rollo Tomasi]

According to your own quote there was only one terms or conditions of the pardon. That condition was the submission to federal authority. There was no condition about the need for the Pardon to be "accepted" in order to be valid. I think that is what qtaggart is asking. Where does this quote even imply that Young's acceptance or rejection of the pardon was a condition?

The "offer" was the proclamation of pardon; "acceptance" of that proclamation of pardon was contingent on the recipient's commitment of future loyalty to the U.S. government. The fact that a contingency exists does not obviate the need to accept the offer itself. And this BY did in full, after meeting the contingency, as decreed by Cumming. By so accepting the proclamation, BY accepted the statements concerning his treason -- there was no need for him to repeat verbally what he had already done when he accepted the proclamation as written.

[USU78]

The disconnect between this:

We have got to be called treasoners by our enemies. Joseph was taken up six times, if I remember rightly, on the charge of treason. Once he was brought into court by some enemies who thought they could prove that he had committed adultery, and that they termed treason. At another time our brethren wanted to vote in Davies County, Missouri, and said they would cast their votes and have their rights with other citizens; whereupon Joseph was taken up for treason. Another time, he was taken up on a charge of high treason; and when he came before the grand jury, his enemies wanted to prove that he had more than one wife, asserting that that was high treason.

Our enemies are constantly yelling "Rebellion! Treason!" no matter how peaceful, orderly, and loyal we may be. And now to come out in open opposition to their cursed, corrupt practices, will of course be counted treason. But let me tell you that the real, actual treason is committed in Washington, by the administrators of our Government sending an army to take the lives of innocent citizens. Every man is allowed by the Constitution to have what religion he pleases. That liberty is guaranteed by the Constitution; "but you,

[Confidential Informant]

Could you be any more dense?

An amnesty cannot, by it's nature, deal with forgiveness because it occurs in a case where no crime has been charged and conviction has never occurred. You cannot "forgive" someone when they have not even been charged with a crime. Amnesty only recognizes that a crime may have been committed, that's all.

You, however, are claiming that Young's acceptance of the amnesty represent an tacit admission of his guilt. It most certainly does not, and as you have already admitted, the only condition placed on the amnesty offer was future submission to federal authority.

Will you now change your argument and claim that Young was admitting that he "might" have committed treason? That would be the only reasonable fall back position at this point.

How many years have you been studying pardons?  Obviously not enough ....

Enough to have written a fairly extensive paper on the topic. I'll let those reading this thread make the determination of which of use better understands the power.

C.I.

[Rollo Tomasi]

The disconnect between this:

We have got to be called treasoners by our enemies. Joseph was taken up six times, if I remember rightly, on the charge of treason. Once he was brought into court by some enemies who thought they could prove that he had committed adultery, and that they termed treason. At another time our brethren wanted to vote in Davies County, Missouri, and said they would cast their votes and have their rights with other citizens; whereupon Joseph was taken up for treason. Another time, he was taken up on a charge of high treason; and when he came before the grand jury, his enemies wanted to prove that he had more than one wife, asserting that that was high treason.

Our enemies are constantly yelling "Rebellion! Treason!" no matter how peaceful, orderly, and loyal we may be. And now to come out in open opposition to their cursed, corrupt practices, will of course be counted treason. But let me tell you that the real, actual treason is committed in Washington, by the administrators of our Government sending an army to take the lives of innocent citizens. Every man is allowed by the Constitution to have what religion he pleases. That liberty is guaranteed by the Constitution; "but you,

[gtaggart]

I've read what you've posted before, but that doesn't answer my question.  Where does it say that before Brigham or others can be pardoned, they must acknowledge sedition and treason?  Yes, I know that Buchanan blathers on and on about sedition and treason, but where are the conditions you are trumpeting?

As I said before, BY had to accept the proclamation as written (not just the parts he agreed with) in order to get the pardon. Once he accepted the proclamation and its "prescribed terms" (as Cumming decreed), Brigham accepted all the statements in the proclamation, including his treason.

Oh, so you are saying that when Cumming's wrote ""Whereas, The proffered pardon was accepted, with the prescribed terms of the proclamation, by the citizens of Utah" he was using "prescribed terms of the proclamation" to refer to every dotted i and each crossed t in Buchanan's proclamation?

If so, then why in his next breath did Cumming's write, "Now, therefore, I, Alfred Cumming, governor of Utah territory, in the name of James Buchanan, president of the United States, do proclaim that all persons who submit themselves to the laws and to the authority of the federal government are by him freely and fully pardoned for all treasons and seditions heretofore committed"?

And why does the bolded phrase (emphasis mine) repeat virtually verbatim the phrase in Buchanan's proclamation? "I offer now a full and free pardon to all who will submit themselves to the authority of the federal government."

And why can't you point to anyplace in either the proclamation or Cumming's "proclamation of acceptance" where the pardon was conditioned on acknowledging sedition and treason?

[Confidential Informant]

Amnesty is a "general pardon." The priniciple is the same -- whether you call it "amnesty" or "pardon," it can be conditional.

Yes, a general pardon that occurs before charges are brought or conviction obtained. That's a distinction drawn by the U.S. Supreme Court, not me, so if you disagree with the Court, I can't do much about that. I can only cite the relevant authorities.

Yes, an amnesty can be conditional, as it was in this case. The condition was future adherance to Federal authority. The condition could not have legally been that the recipient admit guilt as such a condition would have been an unconstitutional infringment of the recipient's due process rights.

The document in question merely laid out the crimes which "may" have been committed and for which the amnesty was being issued. Again, if you wish to amend your argument to a claim that Young's acceptance of the amnesty represented a recognition on his part that he "might" have been charged with the crimes described, I suppose I can accept that because it's clear that the Gov't could have brought the charges. Whether they could have made them out and gotten a conviciton is another question, but I can certainly see Young agree to the statement that the gov't could have charged him with them.

However, acceptance of the amnesty did not, and from a legal stand point, could not have represented an admission of guilt.

C.I.

[Rollo Tomasi]

An amnesty cannot, by it's nature, deal with forgiveness because it occurs in a case where no crime has been charged and conviction has never occurred. You cannot "forgive" someone when they have not even been charged with a crime. Amnesty only recognizes that a crime may have been committed, that's all.

The word "amnesty" derives from the Greek amnestia, which means forgetfulness. It connotes that the offender's crime has been overlooked ("forgotten") because to do so benefits society (more than the punishment of the crime would). Buchanan even says in his Proclamation that this is the reason he is extending amnesty, because he's "anxious to save the effusion of blood, and to avoid the indiscriminate punishment of a whole group ...."

Hit the law books, young man, and come back when you're better prepared.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Oh, so you are saying that when Cumming's wrote ""Whereas, The proffered pardon was accepted, with the prescribed terms of the proclamation, by the citizens of Utah" he was using "prescribed terms of the proclamation" to refer to every dotted i and each crossed t in Buchanan's proclamation?

If so, then why in his next breath did Cumming's write, "Now, therefore, I, Alfred Cumming, governor of Utah territory, in the name of James Buchanan, president of the United States, do proclaim that all persons who submit themselves to the laws and to the authority of the federal government are by him freely and fully pardoned for all treasons and seditions heretofore committed"?

And why does the bolded phrase (emphasis mine) repeat virtually verbatim the phrase in Buchanan's proclamation? "I offer now a full and free pardon to all who will submit themselves to the authority of the federal government."

And why can't you point to anyplace in either the proclamation or Cumming's "proclamation of acceptance" where the pardon was conditioned on acknowledging sedition and treason?

The Proclamation was accepted in full (nothing was changed, that I know of); hence, Cumming's reference not only to the acceptance of the pardon, but to the acceptance of the proclamation and "its prescribed terms," which included the pardon. Cumming was simply declaring that the pardon was now effective, since the contingencies had been met and the terms of the proclamation accepted.

[USU78]

The disconnect between this:

We have got to be called treasoners by our enemies. Joseph was taken up six times, if I remember rightly, on the charge of treason. Once he was brought into court by some enemies who thought they could prove that he had committed adultery, and that they termed treason. At another time our brethren wanted to vote in Davies County, Missouri, and said they would cast their votes and have their rights with other citizens; whereupon Joseph was taken up for treason. Another time, he was taken up on a charge of high treason; and when he came before the grand jury, his enemies wanted to prove that he had more than one wife, asserting that that was high treason.

Our enemies are constantly yelling "Rebellion! Treason!" no matter how peaceful, orderly, and loyal we may be. And now to come out in open opposition to their cursed, corrupt practices, will of course be counted treason. But let me tell you that the real, actual treason is committed in Washington, by the administrators of our Government sending an army to take the lives of innocent citizens. Every man is allowed by the Constitution to have what religion he pleases. That liberty is guaranteed by the Constitution; "but you,

[Rollo Tomasi]

The document in question merely laid out the crimes which "may" have been committed and for which the amnesty was being issued.