The 1868 Richard Henry Dana Brief

This letter was found by accident in the state archives in 2000 and was not listed as being within the historical papers of the person where it was found.

I have a photo copy of the handwritten, 5 page letter. I call the letter, the RICHARD HENRY DANA BRIEF of 1868 It is reproduced below in the same manner it was written, minus the indentions which I can not reproduce here.



Boston, August 24, 1868

The Honorable

William M. Evarts,

Attorney General,

Sir,

While preparing with yourself, before you assumed your present post, to perform the honorable duty the President had assigned to us, of conducting the trial of Jefferson Davis, you know how much my mind was moved, from the first, by doubts of the expediency of trying him at all. The reasons which prevented my presenting those doubts no longer exist, and they have so ripened into conviction that I feel it my duty to lay them before you in form as you now hold a post of official responsibility for the proceeding.

After the most serious reflection, I cannot see any good reason why the Government should make a question of whether the late civil war was treason and whether Jefferson Davis took any part in it, and submit those questions to the decision of a petit jury of the vicinage of Richmond at nisi prius .

As the Constitution in terms settles the fact that our republic is a state against which treason may be committed, the only constitutional question attending the late war was whether a levying of war against the United States which would otherwise be treason is relieved of that character by the fact that it took the form of secession from the Union by state authority. In other words, the legal issue was, whether secession by a state is a constitutional right, making an act legal and obligatory upon the nation which would otherwise have been treason.

This issue I suppose to have been settled by the action of every department of the Government, by the action of the people itself, and by those events which are definitive in the affairs of men.

The Supreme Court in the Prize Courts (2 Black’s Ref) held, by happily a unanimous opinion that acts of the States, whether secession ordinances, or in whatever form cast, could not be brought into the cases, as justifications for the war, and had no legal effect on the character of the war, or on the political status of territory or persons or property, and that the line of enemy’s territory was a question fact depending upon the line of bayonets of an actual war. The rule in the Prize Courts has been steadily followed in the Supreme Court since, and in the Circuit Courts, without an intimation of a doubt. That the lawmaking and executive departments have treated this secession and war as treason is matter of history, as well as is the action of the people in the highest sanction of war.

It cannot be doubted that the Circuit Court at the trial will instruct the jury in conformity with these decisions, that the late attempt to establish and sustain by war by independent empire within the United States was treason. The only question of fact submitted to the jury will be whether Jefferson Davis took part in the war. As it is one of the great facts of history that he was its head, civil and military, why should we desire to make a question of it and refer its decision to a jury, with powers to find in the negative or affirmative or to disagree? It is not an appropriate question for the decision of a jury, certainly it is not a fact which a Government should, without great cause, give a jury a chance to ignore.

We know that these indictments are to be tried in what was for five years enemy’s territory, which is not yet restored to the exercise of all its political functions, and where the fires are not extinct. We know that it only requires one discontent juror to defeat the Government and give Jefferson Davis and his favorers a triumph. Now, is not such a result one which we must include in our calculation of possibilities? Whatever modes may be legally adopted to draw a jury, or to purge it, and whatever the influence of the court or of counsel, we know that a favorer of treason may get upon the jury. But that is not necessary. A fear of personal violence or social ostracism may be enough to induce one man to withhold his ascent from the verdict, especially as he need not come forward personally, nor give a reason, even in the jury room.

The possible result would be most humiliating to the Government and people of this country, and none the less so from the fact that it would be absurd. The Government would be stopped in the judicial course because it could neither assume nor judicially determine that Jefferson Davis took part in the late civil war. Such a result would also bring into doubt the adequacy of our penal system to deal with such cases as this.

If it were important to secure a verdict as a means of punishing the defendant, the question would present itself differently. But it would be beneath the dignity of the Government and of the issue, to inflict upon him a minor punishment, and, as to a sentence of death, I am sure that, after this lapse of time, and after all that has occurred in the interval, the people of the United States would not desire to see it enforced.

In fine, after the fullest consideration, it seems to me that, by pursuing the trial, the Government can get only a reaffirmation by a Circuit Court at nici prius of a rule of public law settled for this country in every way in which such a matter can be settled, only giving to a jury drawn form the region of the rebellion a chance to disregard the law when announced. It gives that jury a like opportunity to ignore the fact that Jefferson Davis took any part in the late civil war. And one man upon the jury can secure the results. The risk of such absurd and discreditable issues of a great state trial, are assumed for the sake of a verdict which, if obtained, will settle nothing in law or natural practice not now settled, and nothing in fact not now history, while no judgment rendered thereon do we think will be ever executed.

Besides these reasons, and perhaps because of them, I think the public interest in the trial has ceased among the most earnest and loyal citizens.

If your views and those of the President should be in favor of proceeding with the trial, I am confident that I can do my duty as counsel to the utmost of my ability and with all zeal. For my doubts are not what the verdict ought to be. On the contrary, I should feel all the more strongly, if the trial is begun, the importance of victory to the Government, and the necessity of putting forth all power and using all lawful means to secure it. Still, I feel it my duty to say that if the President should judge otherwise, my position in the case is at his disposal.

Very respectfully

Your ob’t. ser’t.

(signed) Richard H. Dana, Jr.

My Heart is in Texas

There is just nothing better than to see a field of bluebonnets in the spring. Usually there are Indian Paintbrushes springing up here and there as well.

The photo above was taken by Pat Kominczak of The StringBenders just a week ago. Isn't it just a beautiful sight! A Texas longhorn munching on bluebonnets....both symbols of Texas.

There has been allot of talk in Texas lately of secession, due to the aggressive encroachment on the rights of Texas at the state level by an ever revealing socialistic administration. Governor Perry has come out saying secession is not the first choice but it is on the table of options.

"We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that. But Texas is a very unique place, and we're a pretty independent lot to boot." -- Gov. rick Perry

If he will put the vote to the people, he would be surprised to find a majority of Texans would support that option.

What would secession mean for Texas?

In a word: Freedom

In another word: Liberty

By and large, Texas is a Christian faith state. You may not believe that by talking to city dwellers, but get into the rural parts of Texas and you will find a great many people not afraid to let you know, Christ is their Saviour.

These aren't what most folks would refer to as Bible-thumpers, they may not even go to church every Sunday, but they have a strong faith just the same.

These people would rather see Texas as a state in the USA because they have a sense of loyalty to America, but that loyalty is to a free America, not a socialistic America. If the rest of the USA doesn't mind going down the road to socialism, well, Texans won't go with them.

The error is in the assumption that the General Government is a party to the constitutional compact. The States … formed the compact, acting as sovereign and independent communities. – John C. Calhoun

If the choice is Freedom or Socialism, hands down, Texans will vote to secede.

How can I be so sure? Because I live here, in Houston. I talk with the average joe blow every day. I hear what folks are whispering.

Texans are a fiercely independent bunch of people, out-spoken and direct with their opinions,they'll help anyone but they don't like being told who to help and when to help.

If Texas were to secede, there would be no more Federal Income Tax, we'd get rid of the IRS with a snap of the fingers, or with that one vote. That alone would put more money in the pockets of Texans, and more money in the economy.

Companies would be more likely to keep their manufacturing jobs here than sending them overseas because we are smart enough to create incentives for doing just that. And on a personal note (Governor Perry, are you reading this?) companies that send their jobs overseas should be taxed higher than companies which create jobs in Texas.

Texas has it's own electrical power grid, we have cattle, sheep and goats, cotton and grain, rice, natural gas, oil (Conoco-Phillips, Exxon-Mobil, Halliburton, Valero, and Marathon Oil), shipping, fishing, medical research, NASA, technologies (Dell, Inc., Texas Instruments, Perot Systems, AT&T, and Electronic Data Systems (EDS), solar power and it looks as though Texas will have great potential in the field of biofuels as well.

Texas leaving a socialist America is a no brainer for Texans, and I could see why Washington DC would not let Texas go without a fight. It could be 1861 all over again.

"We do heartily accept this doctrine, believing it intrinsically sound, beneficent, and one that, universally accepted, is calculated to prevent the shedding of seas of human blood. And, if it justified the secession from the British Empire of Three Millions of colonists in 1776, we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861." - The New-York Daily Tribune, December 17, 1860

One major difference is today, any prevention to Texas by Washington DC would be viewed by the entire world, thanks to the Internet. (I was going to write "the news media" but they seldom report the truth any more. Just look at how they non-reported the recent Tea Parties across America.) And US supported Kosovo's declaration of independence from Serbia in February 2008, so the whole world would be watching to see how the administration would treat Texas declaring it's independence...again.

In a recent news article, a political science professor at Southern Methodist University stated Texas no longer had the right of secession due to having signed a document '...that renounced the original secession." This supposedly happened at the end of the Civil War in Texas as Texas was being brought back into the Union.

First, Texas was in the process of dissolving its relationship with the United States prior to the Civil War. When the war was over, Texas being made to sign any document in order to rejoin the Union would be considered "under duress" and arguable as unenforceable by any law student.

Texas would have been happy to not have been brought back into the Union so Texas signed that document at gun point and was brought back to Lincoln as a prize, a spoil of the War.

Truth be told these many long years, Texas could be described as an occupied nation since 1865.

April 19th Should be a National Holiday

From the beginning of America, April 19th has hosted important events.

It was on this day in 1775 that Capt. John Parker, minuteman commanding the militia, ordered his men not to fire on the British Regulars fast approaching unless fired upon first. The British were coming because the militia, with the help of local colonist had been stockpiling weapons (cannons, powder, muskets), food, and who knew what else.

The British soldiers had been ordered by King George to stop the insolent colonist who had already demonstrated, via the Boston Tea party, that they had had enough of government intrusion into their lives.

When the Regulars arrived, they made the historically famous mistake of demanding from the militia their weapons and supplies. Of course the militia had no intention of giving up their weapons. When they resisted, a British soldier fired a shot and the rest is history.

In 1933, the beginning of the financial end of America was initiated by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who in his infinite wisdom, decided America didn't need to be on the Gold Standard and made his announcement. Why the people didn't stand up then, I don't know. Perhaps they were just too busy trying to survive the depression to worry about what Washington DC was up too.

It was on this date in 1939 when Connecticut decided it was time to join with other states and voted to approve the Bill of Rights. Was it that it just took Connecticut this long to get around to it, or was this an attempt to quietly remedy an embarrassing situation? After all, they joined the United States in 1788, what had they been doing for protection under the B.o.R. since then?

1993, Waco Texas. The Branch Davidian, had been stockpiling food supplies, weapons, ammunition (sound strangely familiar?) to the discontent of the Federal Government, and came under siege by the ATF, FBI and eventually the US military. Texas Gov. Ann Richards gives official approval for President Clinton, through Attorney General Janet Reno, to violate the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 and send in Delta Force to deal with the civilians. The resulting death of women and children would earn Reno the appropriate nickname "The Butcher of Waco".

See Waco: A New Revelation Part 1 and Part 2

In 1995, a cow-poop bomb supposedly blew up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in OKC, all by it's self. We are suppose to believe that countless news reporters, First Responders and even the Bomb Squad, all had mass hallucinations as to the bombs going off as had been reported. Read State Representative Charles Key's letter to the House Of Representatives .

April 19th should be a day of remembrance for all freedom fighters in America. Remembering the people can not trust the government, the people can never, NEVER give up their 2nd Amendment, and that the people must band together, stand together and let the world know we are not domestic terrorist as labeled by some in our government, but we are Americans, in the truest sense of the word.