Today in Supreme Court History: August 20, 1866

8/20/1866: President Andrew Johnson proclaims an "end to insurrection in the United States."

President Andrew Johnson

Comments

[apedad]

Now, therefore, I, Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, do hereby proclaim and declare that the insurrection which heretofore existed in the State of Texas is at an end and is to be henceforth so regarded in that State as in the other States before named in which the said insurrection was proclaimed to be at an end by the aforesaid proclamation of the 2d day of April, 1866.

And I do further proclaim that the said insurrection is at an end and that peace, order, tranquillity, and civil authority now exist in and throughout the whole of the United States of America.

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the city of Washington, this 20th day of August, A.D. 1866, and of the Independence of the United States of America the ninety-first.

https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/august-20-1866-message-proclaiming-end-insurrection-united

We should make August 20th a national holiday.

Reunification Day! Go out and shoot a Secessionist!!!

[Dan Schiavetta]

On Jan. 6, 2021 they would have machine gunned the first person who broke through security and put his foot on the first step leading up to the Capitol. Particularly if they saw a Confederate flag in the crowd.

[Mr. Bumble]

Thank you Dr. Ed.
Oh wait, you muted me. Never mind.

[Michael P]

I believe this is where Gaslight0 normally points out that unfalsifiable hypothetical hypocrisy is the best kind of hypocrisy.

But he has a policy of never criticizing the left. He only criticizes people on the right, often for supposedly being stuck in a partisan rut. (Oh, the irony.)

[Sarcastr0]

Not sure if I see the hypocrisy in the above comment; it seems to be speculating about the Union forces in 1866?

But yeah, I’m pretty open that I don’t like to criticize folks on the left. Or at least not on here (I have other message boards where I mix it up with the left, though I go there less often)

If I don’t like lefties on here, I’m much more likely to ignore or mute than engage if they’re making bad arguments.

I’m here for fun, and I don’t do the thing that isn’t fun for me.

I’ll criticize the left writ large.
I never see you doing that about the right.

Do you consider yourself an honest broker, holding both sides up to equal scrutiny?

[John F. Carr]

I, Andrew Johnson, proclaim peace for our time!

[CJColucci]

Following George Aiken's advice about the Vietnam War -- declare victory and get out -- before Aiken was even born.

[AmosArch]

This was nothing compared to the Jan 6th insurrection which was like 1 hundred million billion quandrillion of this + Russian Civil Wars + Chinese Civil Wars + Taiping Rebellions + Yellow Turban Revolts + all the other Chinese Civil Wars + All the The English civil wars + French + Rome + every other insurrection of all civilizations past, present, and future in the history of the universe and all the possible dimensions and multiversal possibilities in the omniverse x quintillion sextillion to the Graham’s number times worse.

[Sarcastr0]

Amos has some fun with his strawman, so that's nice to see at least.

[Krychek_2]

I'm curious for those who deny that January 6 was an insurrection (and can we at least agree it qualified for riot status just to take that issue off the table) -- what do you think would have been the appropriate action for the Justice Department to take? Not indict anyone for anything?

[Bob from Ohio]

Only indict those who broke down the doors and/or did violent acts.

Basically treat them like the BLM rioters. The ones who got their disorderly charge dismissed. Here, they got tried.

They could also have charged them under the DC code, with probation and shorter sentences.

[NvEric]

Attacking the crowd without warning is when the peaceful protesters became agitated. Capitol and DC police elements violated their procedures and the civil rights of the protesters. So, why indict anyone ?

[Dan Schiavetta]

Metropolitan Co. Board of Education v. Kelley, 453 U.S. 1306 (decided August 20, 1981): Stevens refuses to vacate stay of desegregation order; court that granted stay had greater familiarity with the case, and it would cause confusion if order (affecting 30 schools) went into effect and was later modified by the Sixth Circuit

Rosado v. Wyman, 396 U.S. 1213 (decided August 20, 1969): in suit by welfare recipients challenging new statute which would remove the “floor” of benefit amounts, Harlan refers application to stay enforcement to full Court; the Court eventually ruled in favor of welfare recipients, 397 U.S. 397, 1970

[Sarcastr0]

Johnson not spiking reconstruction may be my all time counterfactual.

Many counterfactuals (no Hitler, etc.) are more boring than you think, being based on a great man assumption when in reality something like whatever was inevitable.

That could be true in this case as well, of course, but it sure looks like the weight of history was at the time going the ther way.

Number 2 is probably ships of the Chinese treasure fleet making it to Europe proper back in the 1400s. It was apparently down to a few decisions that the project got abandoned.

Anyone else have any counterfactuals they're curious about?

[Dan Schiavetta]

Hitler, Washington, Lincoln . . . I'm not a fan of the "great man" theory of history, but I think things would have turned out much differently if these men had not existed. Probably a few others too.

[Sarcastr0]

It's a mix, as with so many things in our complicated universe. But the smart money going in blind is to bet on an individual embodying broader trends than being a pivot point (it is also a fuzzy line, to make things yet more complex)

Washington is a very good thought. Aware he wasn't a policy guy, he really set a cultural tone for our nation that still reverberates to this day. None of the other Founders were in that lane.

Lincoln, I'm not so sure. I'm listening to a Yale course on the Civil War now, and so far it seems he was a man of the times, riding the waves of inevitability.

Also too Hitler. Though you could perhaps go back to Wilson and the Treaty of Versailles as a pivot point that was not inevitable.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Not easy to go to bat for Hitler, but I’ll try.

Easy to remember name (easier than Schicklgruber).

Spellbinding speaker.

Good organizer and adroit politician (until about 1939 of course).

[Mr. Bumble]

If only he had been accepted at art school how different things might have been.

[Sarcastr0]

Agree on all of that - Hitler was an evil man but he did have skills.

But I'm not sure those skills were load-bearing to Germany going fascist and WW2 kicking off.
Maaaaaybe Germany wouldn't have dove into a 2-front war by attacking Russia so early. Which would have changed things, but even then the ultimate outcome was pretty likely the allies winning.

So I don't think if Hitler had been accepted to art school or killed in WWI it's at all clear things would have been different.

[Dilan Esper]

So the Versailles Treaty WAS oppressive (and in retrospect, stupid) and Germans were going to be mad at someone about having to pay reparations as its economy went into the toilet. In that sense it was always going to be a very dangerous situation.

But I would argue that what Hitler did that was different was scapegoating Jews particularly. Which had, obviously, all sorts of historical implications that perhaps would not have occurred with a replacement level German demagogue.

[Sarcastr0]

I've not done a specific study, but from other stuff I've read about the first half of the 20th century, antisemitism post-WWI (and pre as well) was so much in the air, and fascism so in need of a good outgroup, that I'm not sure I think that can be laid at the feet of Hitler in particular.

I mean, Stalin was reading from the same playbook as well. Hungary too.

I believe (could be wrong) Mussolini was not, but was quite willing to go along to get along on the antisemitism front.

[Mr. Bumble]

If, if, if only Wilson had stroked out earlier a much different outcome might have happened and 116,000 Americans wouldn't have been among the WWl casualties.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Hitler was correct in viewing the Versailles treaty as unfair, and one couldn’t condemn him for trying to unite all German speaking people into one Reich (that’s how England, France and Italy got formed). The problem was, such a nation would easily be the biggest and most powerful in Europe.

As for the antisemitism, nobody cared about that, unfortunately (and for years his plan was expulsion not extermination).

[Sarcastr0]

The excerpts of Mein Kampf I've seen make extermination a train that was gonna come in.

[Dan Schiavetta]

According to Speer’s memoirs, Hitler told him around 1937 that it was no longer a valid policy guide. As Speer put it, “I then thankfully gave up my attempts to read that book.”

A fascinating book is, "The Last Jews in Berlin", which notes that there were still 20,000 Jews there even into 1945, which drove Goebbels crazy.

[Krychek_2]

I actually have an idea for a novel involving a counterfactual, though since I'm never going to have time to write it, I'll pass it along:

World War II. A sweet, lovable kid gets sent off to war and comes back thoroughly messed up in the head. Because of his war experiences, he becomes a horrible human being -- alcoholic, physically and sexually abuses his wife and kids, violent criminal in and out of prison. And his kids mostly grow up to be thoroughly messed up as well; one is a pedophile and another is a serial killer.

But one of his sons grows up to be a brilliant physicist who discovers time travel. He decides to save the world -- and especially his mother -- from the pain caused by his father's PTSD by going back in time and killing him just before he goes off to war, thus saving his father from becoming a monster and saving his father's victims from having to deal with him. He understands that he is also preventing his own conception but he is so miserable he does not care.

So, he goes back to 1941 and stabs his father to death as he is leaving a bar with several other soldiers just before being scheduled to be shipped out. But, because of a mistake in his calculations, he does not himself simply disappear as he expected, but is left there, holding a knife over the dead body of his father. He drops the knife and yells for the police to be called. He is promptly arrested, confesses, but refuses to give his name (and of course he has no fingerprints or other identifying information in the system at that point so no one can figure out who he is), and demands an immediate death sentence.

He represents himself at a trial that mostly consists of him telling the court why his crime qualifies as a death penalty crime under the statute and demanding a quick trip to the gas chamber. The nation is taken up with the fascinating story of a person who appeared apparently out of nowhere, committed a murder for no apparent motive, and wants to die.

The court grants him his wish and sends him to death row. He becomes convinced that he is one of the lamed vov tsaddikim (the 36 righteous, an old Jewish legend about 36 righteous people whose righteousness prevents a just God from destroying a sinful world, based on Abraham's attempts to get God to spare Sodom if only a few righteous could be found there) and sends for the Jewish chaplain. The chaplain, who normally has no time for such foolishness, spends an hour talking to him and becomes convinced that whether or not he's one of the 36 righteous, killing him would be a mistake for reasons he can't quite put his finger on, and launches a campaign to save his life.

The the meantime the warden (Clinton T. Duffy, an actual historical figure), a great humanitarian who privately opposes the death penalty, also befriends him and they spend hours talking. He finally decides to open up to the warden and tell him the story about what happens, which he proves by transporting the warden forward in time to 2000, his original starting point, on the condition that the warden will do nothing to try to prevent his execution. While they are still in 2000, he happens to be in the right place at the right time to prevent a school shooting and save the lives of 20 children.

The warden tries hard to convince him to simply remain in 2000 to stop the school shooting, but he refuses. He is so unhappy with his life that all he wants to do is die. So, he and warden return to (now) 1942 and to the gas chamber he goes. The thoroughly disgusted warden drops the pellets himself. And, in 2000, 20 children die in a school shooting.

[Sarcastr0]

A much more personal story. Slots in well with some 1990s stories of similar kind.

But it really reminds me of a short story I read in "Dangerous Visions" where killing Hitler, your grandpa etc, doesn't change reality. It just makes you just that much easier to ignore, as you're a bit less of reality.

But my favorite of the 'time travel's effect on the traveler' takes is the trope of the time traveler encountering just lotsa versions of themself, knowingly or unknowingly.

[Magister]

Come on, it's August! Somebody recommend some time travel movies.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"The Love Letter," a Civil War-themed t.v. film based on Jack Finney's short story [it was just a launching pad] with Campbell Scott (modern day creater of Civil War role playing games) and Jennifer Jason Leigh (Civil War). The two communicated & fell in love via a magical mailbox.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Time After Time, a historical romance involving Jack the Ripper was another pretty good one. Mary Steenburgen played the modern-day love interest. There are a bunch of better known ones, of course, including (for Star Trek fans) Star Trek IV which was pretty fun.

It was pretty cheesy, but I enjoyed Voyagers! a 1980s t.v. series that lasted a season.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Back to the Future" anyone.

[Magister]

I'm going to check out Voyagers!, the only one mentioned so far that I haven't seen (or read, in the case of Sarcastr0's book suggestion This Is How You Lose the Time War).

Some I enjoyed:
Edge of Tomorrow - mostly for seeing Tom Cruise killed over and over.
Primer - one must travel back in time repeatedly in order to understand this movie.
The Time Machine (2002) - good version of the H. G. Wells novel.
Army of Darkness - a sequel to Evil Dead II, which was not itself a sequel; time travel really just sets things up.
Madoka Magica - weird anime that explains magical girls (in sort of the same way that The Cabin in the Woods explained horror movies), one of whom can manipulate time.

[Dan Schiavetta]

A good one was “Peggy Sue Got Married”, unfortunately gratuitously ruined by Nicholas Cage doing a Pee-Wee Herman impersonation.

[Sarcastr0]

Maybe it's my physics background but I'm a time travel curmudgeon. Ironic since I am a big Star Trek fanboy and that's very much a well they love to dip into.

TV shows:
Babylon 5 - War Without End parts I and II.
Not to heavy, pretty well executed closed timelike loop.
Star Trek, The Original Series: Tomorrow is Yesterday.
Light as whipping cream, helps the paradox go down.

Movies:
Terminator 2: Of course
Another closed timelike loop. Inelegant, to my non-deterministic eyes. But hard to care when it's such a banger

Books:
This is How you Lose the Time War
Lucious prose; time travel is very much unformed and in the background but also somehow required for the romance to work.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Star Trek …

The City on the Edge of Forever is my favorite.

[Commenter_XY]

Arena
The City on the Edge of Forever

[Dan Schiavetta]

TNG, "Cause and Effect"

[Mr. Bumble]

Nice story, but Mr. Peabody is not real and neither is time travel.

[Krychek_2]

On the physics of it, time travel is actually impossible since it would require matter to be in two different places at the same time. But as with all novels, science fiction is not bound by reality. You think The Moon is a Harsh Mistress could happen in reality?

[Mr. Bumble]

I meant the nice story part; kind of creative but like you've said just not possible.

[SRG2]

I don’t think that there’s an either/or wrt great man/historical trend – it depends on the circumstances. There may be situations where two possible paths are highly divergent and almost equally likely and the right (or wrong) person in the right place makes the difference. Arguably Brexit is like that, and would have been averted by the simple measure of Cameron setting a supermajority requirement for leaving the EU.

Some other counterfactuals:

Suppose there’s no butterfly ballot in Florida in 2000? Al Gore wins. Is 9/11 forestalled? If not, does the US invade Iraq? Sure not.

Genghis Khan's death occurs later - hence the Mongol generals don't stop attacking European states to return home to elect a new khan.

[Sarcastr0]

Oooh, all 3 of those are very good!

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I think stopping 9/11 was going to be hard. OTOH, the invasion of Iraq was much more tied to who was president.

There was going to be some stopping point for the Mongols as there were for the Muslim invasion of Europe earlier. The details would have been somewhat different.

I think a supermajority requirement would have been a good idea & it is a lesson for our system. It's a question of how high of a supermajority requirement and when it is required.

[Dan Schiavetta]

The Bush Administration treated the Clinton/Gore attempts to stop bin Laden as a "wag the dog" diversion from the real national security issue, semen stains on that blue dress.

I don't think 9/11 would have happened under Gore. For one thing, he didn't fire people just for being gay (which kept the "tomorrow is zero hour" email from getting translated until too late).

[Commenter_XY]

What happens if the Battle of Vienna (1683) goes the other way.

[Dan Schiavetta]

A big blow to Catholic Europe, but not to Protestant Europe, which was watching from the sidelines.

[Mr. Bumble]

You don't seriously think "Protestant Europe" would be exempt?

[SRG2]

No croissants

[Commenter_XY]

Now that would have truly been a civilizational loss = no croissants

[Dan Schiavetta]

They used to be called "crescent rolls". What happened?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

" a man of the times, riding the waves of inevitability"

The inevitable in history takes a lot of work and finesse.

The usual accounts have the defeat at Appomattox as the end of the Civil War. Not quite. A few battles occurred. The biggest surrender (Joe Johnson) occurred. And, a Confederate raider continued raiding into the summer.

Talk about not knowing when to quit. Johnson's final declaration arose from actions in Texas. Texas was the last Confederate state to surrender. This led to the events celebrated on Juneteenth since under the Emancipation Proclamation slaves were freed when the Union officially controlled an area.

The official declaration OTD arose from a new Unionist government being established in Texas.

https://www.history.com/news/why-the-civil-war-actually-ended-16-months-after-lee-surrendered

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Alito on 8/20/21 granted an administrative stay in Biden v. Texas, granting the government's request to stay an order having to reinstate a Trump-era program known as the “remain in Mexico” policy. Alito did so late Friday night, but it was only a temporary relief.

On the next Tuesday -- split 6-3 by the usual suspects -- the Biden Administration's request was denied.

https://amylhowe.com/2021/08/24/court-wont-block-order-requiring-reinstatement-of-remain-in-mexico-policy/

Ultimately, in Biden v. Texas (2022), Biden's ending of the policy was upheld. Roberts wrote the opinion, joined by the liberals (including Breyer, his last case before retirement) & Kavanaugh.