Posted on 08/20/2004 5:43:21 AM PDT by TexConfederate1861
Imagine that America had a Chief Justice of the United States who actually believed in enforcing the Constitution and, accordingly, issued an opinion that the war in Iraq was unconstitutional because Congress did not fulfill its constitutional duty in declaring war. Imagine also that the neocon media, think tanks, magazines, radio talk shows, and television talking heads then waged a vicious, months-long smear campaign against the chief justice, insinuating that he was guilty of treason and should face the punishment for it. Imagine that he is so demonized that President Bush is emboldened to issue an arrest warrant for the chief justice, effectively destroying the constitutional separation of powers and declaring himself dictator.
An event such as this happened in the first months of the Lincoln administration when Abraham Lincoln issued an arrest warrant for Chief Justice Roger B. Taney after the 84-year-old judge issued an opinion that only Congress, not the president, can suspend the writ of habeas corpus. Lincoln had declared the writ null and void and ordered the military to begin imprisoning thousands of political dissenters. Taney’s opinion, issued as part of his duties as a circuit court judge in Maryland, had to do with the case of Ex Parte Merryman (May 1861). The essence of his opinion was not that habeas corpus could not be suspended, only that the Constitution requires Congress to do it, not the president. In other words, if it was truly in "the public interest" to suspend the writ, the representatives of the people should have no problem doing so and, in fact, it is their constitutional prerogative.
As Charles Adams wrote in his LRC article, "Lincoln’s Presidential Warrant to Arrest Chief Justice Roger B. Taney," there were, at the time of his writing, three corroborating sources for the story that Lincoln actually issued an arrest warrant for the chief justice. It was never served for lack of a federal marshal who would perform the duty of dragging the elderly chief justice out of his chambers and throwing him into the dungeon-like military prison at Fort McHenry. (I present even further evidence below).
All of this infuriates the Lincoln Cult, for such behavior is unquestionably an atrocious act of tyranny and despotism. But it is true. It happened. And it was only one of many similar constitutional atrocities committed by the Lincoln administration in the name of "saving the Constitution."
The first source of the story is a history of the U.S. Marshal’s Service written by Frederick S. Calhoun, chief historian for the Service, entitled The Lawmen: United States Marshals and their Deputies, 1789–1989. Calhoun recounts the words of Lincoln’s former law partner Ward Hill Laman, who also worked in the Lincoln administration.
Upon hearing of Laman’s history of Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus and the mass arrest of Northern political opponents, Lincoln cultists immediately sought to discredit Laman by calling him a drunk. (Ulysses S. Grant was also an infamous drunk, but no such discrediting is ever perpetrated on him by the Lincoln "scholars".)
But Adams comes up with two more very reliable accounts of the same story. One is an 1887 book by George W. Brown, the mayor of Baltimore, entitled Baltimore and the Nineteenth of April, 1861: A Study of War (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1887). In it is the transcript of a conversation Mayor Brown had with Taney in which Taney talks of his knowledge that Lincoln had issued an arrest warrant for him.
Yet another source is A Memoir of Benjamin Robbins Curtis, a former U.S. Supreme Court Justice. Judge Curtis represented President Andrew Johnson in his impeachment trial before the U.S. Senate; wrote the dissenting opinion in the Dred Scott case; and resigned from the court over a dispute with Judge Taney over that case. Nevertheless, in his memoirs he praises the propriety of Justice Taney in upholding the Constitution by opposing Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus. He refers to Lincoln’s arrest warrant as a "great crime."
I recently discovered yet additional corroboration of Lincoln’s "great crime." Mr. Phil Magness sent me information suggesting that the intimidation of federal judges was a common practice in the early days of the Lincoln administration (and the later days as well). In October of 1861 Lincoln ordered the District of Columbia Provost Marshal to place armed sentries around the home of a Washington, D.C. Circuit Court judge and place him under house arrest. The reason was that the judge had issued a writ of habeas corpus to a young man being detained by the Provost Marshal, allowing the man to have due process. By placing the judge under house arrest Lincoln prevented the judge from attending the hearing of the case. The documentation of this is found in Murphy v. Porter (1861) and in United States ex re John Murphy v. Andrew Porter, Provost Marshal District of Columbia (2 Hay. & Haz. 395; 1861).
The second ruling contained a letter from Judge W.M. Merrick, the judge of the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia, explaining how, after issuing the writ of habeas corpus to the young man, he was placed under house arrest. Here is the final paragraph of the letter:
After dinner I visited my brother Judges in Georgetown, and returning home between half past seven and eight o’clock found an armed sentinel stationed at my door by order of the Provost-Marshal. I learned that this guard had been placed at my door as early as five o’clock. Armed sentries from that time continuously until now have been stationed in front of my house. Thus it appears that a military officer against whom a writ in the appointed form of law has first threatened with and afterwards arrested and imprisoned the attorney who rightfully served the writ upon him. He continued, and still continues, in contempt and disregard of the mandate of the law, and has ignominiously placed an armed guard to insult and intimidate by its presence the Judge who ordered the writ to issue, and still keeps up this armed array at his door, in defiance and contempt of the justice of the land. Under the circumstances I respectfully request the Chief Judge of the Circuit Court to cause this memorandum to be read in open Court, to show the reasons for my absence from my place upon the bench, and that he will cause this paper to be entered at length on the minutes of the Court . . . W.M. Merrick Assistant Judge of the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia
As Adams writes, the Lincoln Cult is terrified that this truth will become public knowledge, for it if does, it means that Lincoln "destroyed the separation of powers; destroyed the place of the Supreme Court in the Constitutional scheme of government. It would have made the executive power supreme, over all others, and put the president, the military, and the executive branch of government, in total control of American society. The Constitution would have been at an end."
Exactly right.
August 19, 2004
Thomas J. DiLorenzo [send him mail] is the author of The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War, (Three Rivers Press/Random House). His latest book is How Capitalism Saved America: The Untold Story of Our Country’s History, from the Pilgrims to the Present (Crown Forum/Random House, August 2004).
Copyright © 2004 LewRockwell.com
If you are referring to slavery, I need only note (1) that you'll be hard pressed to find me saying so much as a word that suggests it is anything other than sinful, and (2) that you've already forfeited your right to pass moral judgment on it by embracing torture and murder as positive goods.
"Cruel and unusual" is a provision from the Constitution - something the southerners had renounced. it didn't apply to traitors.
Three problems with that:
1. The term "traitor" denotes a very specific crime upon a specified person or group of persons. It is also a crime that, by its very nature, must be affirmatively decided under the law (unlike murder, which must be ascertained under the law but exists as an act of murder regardless). Thus to call somebody a traitor in fact requires a determination in fact of his guilt in the act of treason.
2. Not one single person who was murdered by Milroy ever had the luxury of a formal proceeding of charges against him much less a determination of guilt, which is required under the laws of war and the procedures of the United States Army even if those charges are conducted by a military authority rather than a civil one.
3. Under no law of war and under no procedure of the United States military is death by way of medieval-style torture permitted as a means of execution, and certainly not when simpler means are available.
But go ahead defending the indefensible, Stalin boy. You're only showing your true colors and they are soviet red.
Not at all. Lincoln fully participated in constitutional democracy. Where the terms of the Constitution could be enforced, they were. Where the Constitution had been overthrown, and where combat ensued, the Law of War replaced it.
Slobdan, a loser in war (not unlike the rebels), is forced to resort to sophism to justify his actions (not unlike the rebels and neo-rebels).
Lincoln understood that the war could only end with one result - a northern victory. But what nature of victory? More than one historian has suggested that had Lincoln not been assassinated as part of a southern conspiracy, he may very well have conducted a less "vigorous" reconstruction policy. His second inaugural address ("malice toward none") suggests just that. In fact, Lincoln may very well have spared the South of some of the indignities they later suffered.
Some more radical proponents of the prosecution of the war and of the southern war criminals would have felt justified by hanging or shooting every southern insurrectionist politician and military officer for their treason, and suppressed every aspect of southern life for decades. Lincoln realized the defeated southerners would necessarily need to be reintegrated into America - but not on their own terms. Though Lincoln's idea of reconstruction died with him, what he had started defused in part the more excessive plans of the radicals.
As I see it, the South owes Lincoln a debt of gratitude.
Nice photo, but other than the caption-writer's opinion, there is not much by way of substantiation.
For an interesting contrast of POW camps, see this picture of the hovels at Andersonville:
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?pp/ils:@field(NUMBER+@band(cph+3c22695))
"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"
Heyworth, what stand is saying is that atrocities committed by southrons are to be ignored because they don't fit the the preconceptions, the misconceptions, or the propaganda!
Odd, stand. I was under the impression that the rebels had a penchant for shooting and hanging uniformed black Union soldiers who had been captured. Even CSA General Andrews wrote, "I cannot longer doubt that U.S. colored soldiers captured by the C.S. forces have been deliberately murdered after capture." These were not isolated incidents. It seems then, by your own definition, the confederacy isn't a "civilized nation."
stand, are you sure you are not mistaking the "filth in blue" with some well-deserved pay-back issued by John Ross and his buddies?
Humor me. Name the "great parts" Lincoln "suspended."
What Lincoln really said"
"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. I can not be ignorant of the fact that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of having the National Constitution amended. While I make no recommendation of amendments, I fully recognize the rightful authority of the people over the whole subject, to be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instrument itself; and I should, under existing circumstances, favor rather than oppose a fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it. I will venture to add that to me the convention mode seems preferable, in that it allows amendments to originate with the people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or reject propositions originated by others, not especially chosen for the purpose, and which might not be precisely such as they would wish to either accept or refuse. I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution — which amendment, however, I have not seen — has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."
I suppose much of your misrepresentation of Lincoln's position comes from the last sentence, because nothing else in his statement concerning constitutional amendments even remotely supports you contention. The phrase "holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable," can easily be recast as "If this amendment is ratified, I won't oppose it or try to undo it." It was a salve for the Southern Unionists; but the issue of secession was politically too far gone.
The bottom line is that the order itself does not provide any of the background of why it was made. There are legitimate reasons, such as those I mentioned, for all of his actions, as defined in the Articles of War.
While I understand your outrage, if find it to be more emotional than analytical. Many of the charges of "atrocities" are without a firm foundation, and we usually find when some sort of "documentation" is posted, it's from somebody's granddaddy's journal written 40 years after the fact (or conversely, in some obscure archive that nobody can easily access).
Once again you have put yourself into a God-like role to avoid the truth. Your premise is utterly without substantiation ("murder by torture" in more grievous than the torture, murder, and inhumanity of slavery). You are a piece of work, and not a particularly courageous one at that.
Explain "million-man" comment. You sound like Calypso Louie. This should be good.
If Bush does win real big, >15%, he has a good chance of getting a filibuster-proof Senate too.
Said the pathetic fabricator who alleges he cannot discern the difference between a Petitition for a Writ of Cert and the decision of the court in Hamdi.
HDQRS. C. S. FORCES ON SHENANDOAH MOUNTAIN, January 13, 1863.
Honorable JAMES A. SEDDON, Secretary of War.
SIR: In reply to a letter from Robert Ould, esq., agent of exchange, to H. B. Davidson, of date January 2, 1863, which was referred to me, I have the honor to transmit herewith proof of the authenticity of certain orders of Brigadier General R. H. Milroy, U. S. Army, which were forwarded by me to the President some weeks ago. In addition to the deposition of Job Parsons and myself I furnish you as cumulative evidence a copy of The Crisis, of date December 24, 1862, a newspaper published at Columbus, Ohio, in which the orders of Milroy are published as part of the history of the times. I have not seen Adam Harper, who is the subject of this published order, but two of his sons, one of whom is my scout, have stated to me that their father was compelled to pay the assessment of $285 to save his life. The whole amount
of money raised by these illegal assessments in the small county of Tucker as near as I can ascertain it is about $6,000. Were I to report every case of outrage of this character which has come to my knowledge it would astound all Christian people who read it. Permit me, sir, to express the opinion that we have an effectual remedy for these crimes by the adoption of an inexorable rule of retaliation. The oppression of our people cannot be increased but I believe will be mitigated by the enforcement of the fullest measure of retaliation on these bloodthirsty savages. *
Respectfully, your obedient servant,
J. D. IMBODEN,
Colonel, Commanding.
[Inclosure Numbers 1.]
VIRGINIA, Augusta County, to wit:
This day Job Parsons (son of Abraham Parsons), a citizen of Tucker County, Va., personally appeared before the undersigned justice of the peace in and for the county aforesaid and being by me duly sworn deposes and says that on the 27th day of November, 1862, being at his father's house on Cheat River, in Tucker County, eight miles above Saint George, the country seat of said county, a Federal lieutenant with five men came there and handed to deponent a paper of which Exhibit A hereto attached is a literal and exact copy. That at the same time and place a similar paper was handed to Abraham Parsons, deponent's father, and on the same day similar notices were served on from thirty to forty citizens of Tucker County by the same authority. On the next day, November 28, 1862, deponent repaired to Saint George where he found a company of the One hundred and twenty-third Ohio Regiment stationed in the court-house under command of Captain Horace Kellogg. As soon as deponent arrived Captain Kellogg in person handed him a paper of which Exhibit B, herewith filed, is an exact and literal copy. On reading this paper deponent remarked to Captain Kellog that it was a very rigid and unreasonable order and he thought it very unjust to hold private citizens responsible for the acts of the military authorities, to which Captain Kellogg replied that he thought not, that the old man (General Milroy) was in earnest. Deponent further says that on the same day (November 28) he saw a similar order, exactly, served upon his father, Abraham Parsons, who was assessed with the sum of $340 and that fifteen or twenty other citizens received the same orders at the same time who were assessed with various sums. Deponent did not pay his assessment but made his escape from the county and came through the mountains to the camp of Colonel John D. Imboden at Shenandoah Mountain and delivered to him the papers of which Exhibits A and B are true copies. And further saith not.
JOB PARSONS.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 10th day of January, 1863.
WM. W. MONTGOMERY,
Justice of the Peace.
[First indorsement.]
VIRGINIA, Augusta County Court, Clerk's Office:
I, William A. Burnett, deputy clerk of said court, certify that on this the 12th of January, 1863, Colonel John D. Imboden personally appeared before me in my office aforesaid, and being by me duly sworn deposes and says that he is personally acquainted with Job Parsons, whose deposi-
---------------
*For other correspondence, etc., relating to Milroy's orders, see Series III.
---------------
tion is above taken, and that he knows the general reputation and character of said Job Parsona and does not hesitate to say that said Parsona is a man of excellent moral character and worthy of full credit as a truthful man and witness. Deponent further states that he forwarded to Richmond the originals of Exhibits A and B, which were furnished to him early in December last by said Parsons, and that he has no doubt of the genuineness of said orders nor of the fact that a large number of the loyal citizens of Tucker County have had similar orders served upon them by Captain Kellogg and that large sums of money have by this means been extorted from them. And further saith not.
JOHN D. IMBODEN.
[Second indorsement.]
I further certify that William W. Montgomery, whose name is signed to the foregoing deposition of Job Parsons, was at the date of said deposition and now is a justice of the peace in and for the country aforesaid. In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of my court the day and year above written.
WM. A. BURNETT,
Deputy Clerk.
[Exhibit A.]
SAINT GEORGE, TUCKER COUNTY, VA.,
November 27, 1862.
Mr. JOB PARSONS:
(Son of Abraham Parsons.)
You are hereby ordered to report in person or by your representative at my headquarters in Saint George Court-House on the 28th of November, 1862, to attend to business of vital importance to yourself, and in case of your failure to comply with the above order you must suffer the penalty.
By order of Brigadier General R. H. Milroy:
HORACE KELLOGG,
Captain and Post Commandant.
[Exhibit B.]
SAINT GEORGE, TUCKER COUNTY, VA.,
November 28, 1862.
Mr. JOB PARSONS:
(Son of Abraham Parsons.)
SIR: In consequence of certain robberies which have been perpetrated upon Union citizens of Tucker County, Va, by bands of guerrillas you are hereby assessed to the amount of $14. 25 to make good their losses, and upon your failure to comply with the above assessment by paying the money over to me by the 1st day of December, 1862, the following order will be executed, viz:
If they fail to pay at the end of the time you have named their houses will be burned and themselves shot and their property all seized, and be sure that you carry out this threat rigidly and show them that you are not trifling or to be trifled with. You will inform the inhabitants for ten or fifteen miles around your camp on all the roads approaching the town upon which the enemy may approach that they must dash in and give you notice, and that upon failure of any one to do so their horses will be burned and the men shot:
By order of Brigadier General R. H. Milroy:
HORACE KELLOGG,
Captain, Commanding Post.
[Inclosure Numbers 2.]
[Extract from The Crisis newspaper, December 24, 1862.]
ANOTHER MILROY ORDER.
The following letter comprising an order from General Milroy belongs to the history of the times:
SAINT GEORGE, TUCKER COUNTY, VA.,
November 28, 1862.
Mr. ADAM HARPER.
SIR: In consequence of certain robberies which have been committed on Union citizens of this county by bands of guerrillas you are hereby assessed to the amount of $285 to make good their losses. And upon your failure to comply with the above assessment by the 8th day of December the following order has been issued to me by Brigadier General R. H. Milroy:
"You are to burn their houses, seize all their property and shoot them. You will be sure that you strictly carry out this order.
"You will inform the inhabitants for ten or fifteen miles around your camp on all the roads approaching the town upon which the enemy may approach that they must dash in and give you notice, and that upon any one failing to do so you will burn their horses and shoot the men. "
By order of Brigadier General R. H. Milroy:
H. KELLOGG,
Captain, Commanding Post.
The above Adam Harper the subject of this order is an old Dutchman over eighty-two years of age, a cripple and infirm, and can neither read nor write.
The above is a little ahead of anything that has yet met our eye. Because Adam Harper could neither read nor write, eighty-two years old and a cripple General Milroy to the disgrace of the nation orders a tax of $285 levied on him, and the whole country for ten or fifteen miles round is to be laid waste! "You are to burn their horses, seize all their property and shoot them. You will be sure that you strictly carry out this order. "
And what did those people do? Nothing! But a band of guerrillas is charged with robbing Union citizens. That is all. Can we be surprised to hear of fist fights in the councils of a Cabinet guilty of carrying on such a war? We are not surprised after the above that The Crisis was prohibited circulation through the mails in Western Virginia by military order if such conduct as this is the order of the day.
The bogus government at Wheeling of course comes into existence with a very excellent record of civil and modest pretensions.
And why was the case dropped against John Surratt? I couldn't find your answer.
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.