The Flimsy Case Against Mary Surratt
|
01-20-2019, 07:30 PM
(This post was last modified: 01-20-2019 07:55 PM by L Verge.)
Post: #52
|
|||
|
|||
RE: The Flimsy Case Against Mary Surratt
(01-20-2019 01:37 PM)mike86002000 Wrote:(01-19-2019 01:12 PM)L Verge Wrote:(01-19-2019 10:46 AM)mike86002000 Wrote: "AussieMick" wrote: Mike - I am the one who posted about that, and thank you for identifying the case as being about Japanese-American internments because of perceived threats to national security. To me, it is interesting to note that many of the "decisions" about this have been made within the past two decades. In fact, the citation for your quote about odious, etc. is actually an article from the Huffington Post in November of 2016, written by a Bruce Fein. It seems that the 9/11 terrorists and the Muslim issue are bringing back old memories? To me, the point at any time in history is the safety and security of the American public -- desperate times require desperate measures. [/quote] Lest anyone think the low opinion of the Korematsu case is merely mine and Mr. Fein's, I should clarify: The first part of my quote, that characterizes the case as "an odious and discredited artifact of popular bigotry", is attributed to Mr. Fein. The second part that characterizes it as "a stain on American jurisprudence", is attributed to Carl Takei. The article also quotes numerous other critics with equally scathing comments. (There's a charming photo of Fred Korematsu, too!) My favorite version of a quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin is: "Those who would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." Mike [/quote] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My favorite version of a quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin is: "Those who would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." Good point, Mike (and Mr. Franklin), but how do you maintain your liberty without being able to secure it from your enemies - both military and civilian (i.e. "enemy belligerents') in times of crisis and when the enemy lives next door? I know you are particularly sympathetic to Dr. Mudd's case. Mrs. Surratt never had the opportunity to share her feelings about the "State of the New Union," but Dr. Mudd sure did, especially in his writings to his wife from Fort Jefferson. Even before his case, he was quite vocal about what was happening to his country (much like Booth's writings). See his correspondence with a Catholic literary journal. Google "Letter from Mudd to Orville Brownson, January 13, 1862. Dr. Sam is a tad angry at his church hierarchy as well as the U.S. government. Angry people often take their anger out on those that they perceive to be causing the problem. I believe that evidence before the court in 1865 pointed to his actions before and during the war and in relation to Booth bearing out this anger towards the Union and its leaders One more clarification in reference to the quotes from Bruce Fein of the Huffington Post and Carl Takei, mentioned above in regards to the internments of Japanese-Americans during WWII: Mr. Takei is also a journalist and works for the Los Angeles Times. He has a vested interest in the Korematsu case because his grandmother Betty Takei was one of those sent to the camps despite the fact that her husband (Carl's grandfather) was fighting with a U.S. Army artillery unit in Europe. While in hindsight a most appropriate description of the Korematsu case, perhaps, but not an objective, unbiased one. |
|||
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
User(s) browsing this thread: 7 Guest(s)