Posted on 02/12/2007 6:33:02 AM PST by presidio9
Not just Lincoln apologists but any serious historian, biographer of Lincoln or biographer of Taney. As already noted, James Simon found no evidence of the arrest. Alvin Schumacher doesn't mention it in his "Thunder of Capitol Hill" nor does Steiner seem to have come across it when writing his "Life of Roger Brooke Taney". Perhaps it's because Lamon's papers were a mess, with some written by him and some by Chauncey Black and some, apparently, by his daughter. Lamon's writings were full of errors - he apparently was among the first to claim Lincoln was illegitimate, athiestic, and unfaithful to Mrs. Lincoln. So either there is a vast conspiracy among historians and Lincoln and Taney biographers to suppress the warrant, or all these learned men and women have compared Lamon's alleged claims and found them to be without support. Which do you think?
To be continued...
I'm actually a pretty bright person, well read in history as I believe I've shown by refuting most of what you've claimed so far.
The clause on habeas corpus is found in Article I, Section 9: The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. Nowhere in there does it say only Congress can suspend habeas corpus.
When Lincoln ignored the Supreme Court’s ruling, Taney sent copies of his opinion to other judges, urging them to issue writs of habeas corpus, and many of them did, even enforcing writs against military arrests of civilians.
Lincoln did not ignore the Supreme Court's ruling, the Supreme Court issued no ruling. The court was not in session at the time. At the time Supreme Court Justices also were responsible for a federal circuit court, and Taney was presiding over the Circuit court in Baltimore when he issued the Merryman decision. The fact of the matter is that the entire Supreme Court has never taken up the question of who may or may not suspend habeas corpus.
In his circuit in Maryland, Taney delayed a number of treason trials, as it was his right to do controlling the docket, because with the passion of the times, he doubted a fair trial could be had.
One of which was Merryman. It's interesting to note that once Merryman was released from custody and presented to the grand jury to face treason charges. To nobody's surprise he was indicted and released on bail. Yet Taney did all he could to ensure that Merryman never had his day in court. Taney insisted that he alone would preside over the trial and then repeatedly postponed the trial over the remaining three years of his life. The irony should be obvious. Having lambasted Lincoln and demanded the government justify Merryman's arrest, once the government had done so through a grand jury indictment Taney refused to allow the government to prove their case, or for Merryman to demonstrate his innocence.
If Lincoln obeyed the Court’s order thousands of those arrested illegally would have been freed. Lincoln and most Northerners, during the war, accepted the Machiavellian doctrine that the end justified the means, when the end was to preserve the Union, and was to be achieved regardless of the Constitution and rulings of the Supreme Court. Lincoln expressed that policy to a Chicago clergyman: "As commander in chief of the army and navy, in time of war, I suppose I have a right to take any measure which may best subdue the enemy."
Let's take a look at that quote, in context this time.
"What good would a proclamation of emancipation from me do, especially as we are now situated? I do not want to issue a document that the whole world will see must necessarily be inoperative, like the Pope's bull against the comet! Would my word free the slaves, when I cannot even enforce the Constitution in the rebel States? Is there a single court, or magistrate, or individual that would be influenced by it there? And what reason is there to think it would have any greater effect upon the slaves than the late law of Congress, which I approved, and which offers protection and freedom to the slaves of rebel masters who come within our lines? Yet I cannot learn that that law has caused a single slave to come over to us. And suppose they could be induced by a proclamation of freedom from me to throw themselves upon us, what should we do with them? How can we feed and care for such a multitude? Gen. Butler wrote me a few days since that he was issuing more rations to the slaves who have rushed to him than to all the white troops under his command. They eat, and that is all, though it is true Gen. Butler is feeding the whites also by the thousand; for it nearly amounts to a famine there. If, now, the pressure of the war should call off our forces from New Orleans to defend some other point, what is to prevent the masters from reducing the blacks to slavery again; for I am told that whenever the rebels take any black prisoners, free or slave, they immediately auction them off! They did so with those they took from a boat that was aground in the Tennessee river a few days ago. And then I am very ungenerously attacked for it! For instance, when, after the late battles at and near Bull Run, an expedition went out from Washington under a flag of truce to bury the dead and bring in the wounded, and the rebels seized the blacks who went along to help and sent them into slavery, Horace Greeley said in his paper that the Government would probably do nothing about it. What could I do?
"Now, then, tell me, if you please, what possible result of good would follow the issuing of such a proclamation as you desire? Understand, I raise no objections against it on legal or constitutional grounds; for, as commander-in-chief of the army and navy, in time of war, I suppose I have a right to take any measure which may best subdue the enemy. Nor do I urge objections of a moral nature, in view of possible consequences of insurrection and massacre at the South. I view the matter as a practical war measure, to be decided upon according to the advantages or disadvantages it may offer to the suppression of the rebellion."
Lincoln was talking about the Emancipation Proclamation, and you deliberately misquote him in such a way to suggest he was talking about civil liberties. If you cannot make your case in an honest fashion why try and make it at all?
While the letter has never been found, Lincoln reportedly sent a letter to Taney following his decision in the Merriman case.4 That could explain why Taney told others, "The government had considered the possibility of arresting him."
If the papers have never been found then how do we know that they ever existed? Is this your idea of evidence?
A second hand account was reported in a footnote in Professor Harold Hyman’s book7 citing the private papers of Frances Lieber, also at the Huntington Library. Lieber wrote the Lieber Code which became the Laws of War for Northern armies. That should have been enough proof, with two independent sources. Unfortunately, the Curator at the Huntington Library reports that the Lieber papers contain no reference to Lincoln’s warrant to arrest the Chief Justice.
Then why are we even talking about this? Two pieces of evidence, apparently non-existent?
To be continued...
It's interesting that they bring out the "nuc-u-lar" pronunciation here. I think that it's a generational thing... Everyone I've ever met of that generation pronounced it that way... Even Jimmy Carter! And Carter's a nuclear engineer!
Mark
Everbody knows that there are the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Given those positons, I propose that there be two additional categories of distinction between more/less ugly. By tier and in chronological order:
More ugly: Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Dwight Eisenhower, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Bill Clinton, GWB.
less ugly: Harry Truman, John Kennedy, Gerald Ford
Not so ugly: John Adams, Andrew Johnson, Ulysses Grant
beautifull: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, John Tyler, James Polk, Zachary Taylor, Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, Rutherford Hayes, James Garfield, Chester Arthur, Grover Cleveland, Benjamin Harrison, William McKinley, Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, Howard Taft.
I didn’t bother including William Henry Harrison because he got sick at his inauguration and died a month later.
The real solution to my ranking system would be for The People to demand that the Constitution be adhered to, to the letter of the law. And then, if the Constitution proves unworkable, let’s change it according to the rules instead of just ignoring it. HR 2270 would require Congress to specify the source or authority under the Constitution before they could enact any law. I doubt it will be passed into law. And, even if it is, it’ll probably be ignored. The citizens of the United States are getting the government they deserve. The problem as I see it, is that I’m also getting the government they deserve.
The creation of West Virginia was done with the consent and at the request of a body of Virginia legislators who were not participating in the rebellion and who before partition had been recognized by Congress as the legitimate Virginia legislature. Their request to partition the state fulfilled the requirements of Article IV, Section 3. There was nothing illegal about it.That is pure gibberish and nonsensensical of the highest order, and is not just irrelevent but wholly immaterial. 620,000 lives have decided the answer to that question. If you're so smart concerning these matters, are you a millionaire? Perhaps the assumption that I'm refering to is that brains makes money. Well then, how far has your labor gotten you?
Someone had better tell his biographers that then. In his book "Jefferson Davis, American", William J. Cooper details that Davis was ordered shackled by General Miles, the commander at Fortress Monroe. The order was promptly recinded by Secretary of War Stanton and Davis spent, at most, 5 days in shackles.The writ of habeas corpus for Mr. Davis was issued by the United States Circuit Court for the District of Virginia on the 1st day of May, 1867, and under instructions from the War Department, General H. W. Burton, on the 13th day of May, obeyed the writ and was released from the further custody of the ex-President of the Confederate States.1
================
Notes:
1. Southern Historical Society Papers, Vol. XXXII. Richmond, Va., January-December. 1904.
I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken...ANYBODY can see that the quote presented is a conclusion at the very beginning; the rest being rhetoric (a consequent of the conclusion). If there is an conclusion (used as premise), then there must be an argument of either deductive or inductive nature to arrive at the initial conclusion. It is the initial conclusion that I desire to focus on.
For if we focus not on the initial conclusion before us, then you can entertain yourselves with all the denotations and connotations of all that follows down that slope; I care not to, and do not chose to follow you there.
Your claim was "President Jefferson Davis - spent about 2 years in Fortress Monroe, shackeld in chains 24/7." As I've shown Davis did not spend two years shackled 24/7 regardless of what you would have us believe.
I don't think that anyone can see that, but I'll play along. In February 1861 Jefferson Davis sent a letter to Lincoln introducing members of a 'peace commission'. Their purpose, according to the letter, was "for the purpose of negotiating friendly relations between that government and the Confederate States of America..." Now Lincoln's refusal to meet with these men is often thrown up by supporters of the Southern rebellion as an example Lincoln didn't want peace. But since the only issue open for discussion was when Lincoln would recognize the legitimacy of the rebel secession then isn't this too an example of "a conclusion at the very beginning; the rest being rhetoric (a consequent of the conclusion)?" So if Lincoln's words are a threat, in your opinion, then wasn't that just in reaction to the threat from Jefferson Davis?
Why?
620,000 lives have decided the answer to that question. If you're so smart concerning these matters, are you a millionaire? Perhaps the assumption that I'm refering to is that brains makes money. Well then, how far has your labor gotten you?
It should have taught me not to argue with people like you, but it hasn't.
Wow, I had no idea that this whole things was some sort of odd-ball rebel courting ritual. Sorry, but I'm already taken.
I've read your responses, and I will take the issues that you raise under advisement.
I'm trying to ascertain based on your responses if you'd be one of the occupents of the various vehicles in the parking lot in clear view of my apartmetn bathroom window where several vehicles are deliberately attempting to get stuck in large depths of snow, and practicing lateral forward progress.
LOL.
I used to buy these tires that had too much rubber on them, and you had to take a bit off because there wss too much rubber on the tires. LOL.
I also used to think that going to church was pretty cheesey, and that singing church hymns was a real downer. I still listen to Joe Satriani and drink and smoke; just not as much though. I have issues with that now.
You know, back before Hitler was established as a dictator, everybody loved his speeches. It was that by the time everbody realized what mousetrap they were caught in, it was too late.
That is pure gibberish and nonsensensical of the highest order, and is not just irrelevent but wholly immaterial.O.k., I submit that it boils down to whether 620,000 casualties was a price worth paying to keep those in the unino tht believe they had a God given right to own human beings as property.Why?
If you believe that you have a right to "own" a human being as a piece of property I will kill you.
If believe that I do not have the right to own another human being as property I will kill you.
I ask: what Constitutionlity can be found in the matter? Does the Constitution allow for such issues to be resolved, or do all such issues require 620,000 casualties.
Supposing that the right to abortion would be contested by the Mid-West? How many lives is that worth? The thread was begat under the auspice of "Worst President Ever". If you want to argue against my reasons for "worst President" you'll never win, but it should prove highly entertaining for us all...
Jimmy Carter is not only the "worst President ever" but also the "worst Ex-President ever".
This man paved the way for Clinton.
Carter and his gang, are NEVER to be trusted.
Carter and Johnson are tied in my book.
Here we go again...President Nixon as one of the worst!
One of the best! IMO.
Declassify! Let the TRUTH BE TOLD!
Aren't you overlooking one fundimental factor? It was the confederate states which initiated the war that cost all those hundreds of thousands of men and not the Lincoln administration. Shouldn't you be asking the supporters of Jefferson Davis and the Southern rebellion if the cost of their losing effort was worth the price?
My reaction to most of your posts as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.