Posted on 06/09/2009 8:47:35 AM PDT by Davy Buck
My oh my, what would the critics, the Civil War publications, publishers, and bloggers do if it weren't for the bad boys of the Confederacy and those who study them and also those who wish to honor their ancestors who fought for the Confederacy?
(Excerpt) Read more at oldvirginiablog.blogspot.com ...
A THREAT TO ARREST THE SUPREME COURT. The New York Tribune says:
Last winter, when the rebellion began to assume formidable dimensions, some persons in and near Washington kept a strict watch upon certain suspected officials and prominent politicians. Among those thus carefully observed were some of the Judges of the Supreme Court of the United States. Facts are in possession of gentlemen of the highest character which would authorize the prompt arrest of two or three of those Judges on the charge of treason.
The time not yet having arrived for proceeding in this matter, and, in fact, the rebellion having gone on with such rapid strides as to get almost beyond the necessity of doing it, the serious matter remains in status quo.
We tell the over-zealous champions of the Judges of the Supreme Court, that they had better be quiet.
Given the June timing of this article, someone might have been trying to stifle uproar about the Merryman case and/or intimidate Supreme Court Justices. What treasonable actions could the Supreme Court Justices have done? Could they have meet with people from the South (horrors!)? Or might they have spoken out somewhere in private that in their opinion secession was legal?
The article seems to be giving the underlying threat, "We can't have Supreme Court Justices standing in the way of a chief executive completely unrestrained by law and the Constitution. If you Supreme Court Justices do, we'll bring you up on these charges of treason that are currently in status quo."
and i suspect you KNOW that i don't - thus this continuing SILLINESS of yours (and of N-S's) is yet another in a LONG string of your LIES (this one by OMMISSION.)
laughing AT you NITWIT/LIAR/BIGOT.
free dixie,sw
laughing AT the DAMNyankees of FR,. they are divided into TWO groups:
1. the LIARS
&
2. the members/FOOLS who BELIEVE those LIES.
the whole bunch are LAUGHABLE.
free dixie,sw
115 days.
You're right. Off by a month.
Lincoln had to have known the Merryman case was going on. It was in the papers. Before Taney issued his ruling he could have leaked in a way that Taney would hear that the arrest of Taney was being considered. That might have been what Taney was referring to in his conversation with Brown. He evidently feared he was going to be arrested the day he verbally issued his ruling.
Now you're getting into pure guessing without any evidence at all. Who leaked it for Lincoln? Lamon? He doesn't say so. And while his tale suggests other people were privy to the scheme, nobody else has come forth. There is no paper trail, no substantiation of any kind to Lamon's claim, nothing at all to support the claim. And I still think that the most telling evidence against Lamon's claim is that none of Taney's biographers found enough evidence of the plot to include it in any of their books about the man. Not Simon. Not Schumacher and Gringhus. None of them.
But of course don't let that stop you from believing. In the Southron world Lincoln is responsible for everything up to and including a rainy day.
The one control you do have is actually requesting the book through inter-library loan. Have you tried really doing that? Instead of just saying you did?
the REAL TRUTH is that you are a SERIAL LIAR, who fools NOBODY any more.
free dixie,sw
Who leaked the information about potential arrests of Supreme Court Justices to the New York Tribune in June 1861 in my post 1481? That's right. Nothing there at all. Keep moving.
I don't know whether Lamon was given the warrant. But based on what Taney, Curtis, and the Tribune said, I'd say it was a pretty good guess that there were threats of arrest being made or hinted at. Curtis laid ultimate responsibility for it at the clay feet of Lincoln.
Here are some links to the case of Judge Carmichael arrested in his court in Maryland for instructing juries to indict people for making made arrests without warrants, many of which arrests were being done by federal officials/army. Link1, Link2
There's nothing dishonest about saying that, typically, interlibrary loan takes a couple of weeks and that you're going on four months with the most recent request.
Those are simply facts.
By the way, if you want to spend $85 to put us in our place, Amazon has a used copy.
If you asked the people who fought and died in it, they would tell you:
Results of the Civil War were: Union saved, slavery abolished, Federal Government strengthened.
However, the US Federal Government of 1865 did not even remotely resemble the monstrosity we see today.
He does offer up some challenging arguments from time to time - which in no way suggests that such arguments were actually considered by anyone at the time in question.
laughing AT the DAMNyankees of FR,. they are divided into TWO groups:
1. the LIARS
&
2. the members/FOOLS who BELIEVE those LIES.
the whole bunch are LAUGHABLE.
Almost hate to admit it, sir, but I'm a damn Yankee myself - born & raised in the State (formed from territory originally claimed by the State of Virginia, which claims were very generously surrendered by Virginia in the pursuit of inter-State consensus) that just allowed the Hollywood @ss-clown to steal the senatorial election. If anyone asks, from here on out, I'll tell them I was born in Virginia (the alternative is too d@mn embarrassing - my apologies to real Virginians). I've actually read the original historical documents (as you have) - and as I would hope everyone here at Free Republic would do as well.
Speaking of which - if you want a 'thrill up your leg,' as an American conservative, just read Thomas Jefferson's SECOND declaration (the one they don't teach in any federally funded schools - http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/jeffdec1.asp):
"DRAFT DECLARATION AND PROTEST OF VIRGINIA ON THE PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND ON THE VIOLATIONS OF THEM [BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT]"
"...Whilst the General Assembly thus declares the rights retained by the States, rights which they have never yielded, and which this State will never voluntarily yield, they do not mean to raise the banner of disaffection, or of separation from their sister States, co-parties with themselves to this [constitutional] compact. They know and value too highly the blessings of their Union as to foreign nations and questions arising among themselves, to consider every infraction as to be met by actual resistance. They respect too affectionately the opinions of those [other States] possessing the same rights under the same [constitutional] instrument, to make every difference of construction a ground of immediate rupture. They would, indeed, consider such a rupture as among the greatest calamities which could befall them; but not the greatest. There is yet one greater, submission to a government of unlimited powers..."
- Thomas Jefferson, 1825
"[S]ubmission to a government of unlimited powers?" Here's to Mr. Jefferson's foresight, and any Free Republic on the face of the planet...
First, you need to be always aware that the Internet is chock full of fake "quotes" from famous people, nearly all racist or antisemitic. So, before you go posting any of the more inflammatory "quotes," you need to be sure you know their sources, and contexts.
Second, sentiments like this could be entirely "mainstream" for a prewar northern politician of the 1850s, regarding blacks in the South. In the North, of course, I presume many blacks were by then already voting citizens.
But the real question here is: what's wrong with you people, that you have such a hard time facing basic truths: the South seceded to protect it's "peculiar institution," while the North fought first to preserve the Union, and then, while they were at it, to abolish the South's "peculiar institution."
That's the simple truth of the matter. You need to get over it.
Nonesense. Lincoln clearly told the South there would be no war unless they attacked the North. To call this a "declaration of war" is pure psychological "projection," implying that: "of course the South must attack the North, but it's only war if the North fights back."
This is insanity, and it brought destruction on the South.
It might be insanity from the point of view of people who believed that secession was somehow illegal. However, it made perfect sense to the people who believed that secession was a right of the states and interference with that right was war.
The right of the states to secede was never given up in the Constitution, as the ratification documents of New York, Virginia, and Rhode Island attest. What refuting documents of the time (1787-1791) can you refer to that say secession was illegal? Are there documents from other states in that time that say, no, no, NY, VA, and RI are wrong?
The right of secession was really only settled by force of arms.
Basically, an underage boy was in the federal army. His father tried to get him out by habeas corpus before the DC Circuit. Judge Merrick of the DC Circuit ordered a writ served on Provost Marshal Porter. The court's Deputy Marshal being busy, the lawyer for the plaintiff attempted to serve the writ on the Provost Marshal, which he was legally entitled to do. The writ was refused. The Provost Marshal arrested the plaintiff's lawyer who tried to deliver the writ. Soldiers were then placed outside the house of Judge Merrick to prevent him from going to court.
The remaining two judges of the circuit court ordered a rule to show cause issued against the Provost Marshal requiring him to appear before the court and show why an attachment of contempt should not be issued against him for interfering with the administration of justice by the court.
The Deputy Marshal did not serve it, however, and the Provost Marshal did not appear. The Deputy Marshal reported that he had been ordered not to serve it to the Provost Marshal by the President of the United States because the President had suspended habeas corpus within the District of Columbia for army personnel. The President had not informed the courts of such a suspension, and the judges did not believe the suspension could be retroactive.
The court did not have sufficient power to enforce the writ against the power of the army, so there the case stood.
Many thanks to former poster GOPcapitalist for bringing this case to our attention in 2004.
Like I've said a million times, it is fairly evident that you cannot understand how arrogant that statement is. The mere fact that by force of arms the Union was "preserved" is so ridiculous a concept, it is beyond belief. We are just different people, North/South Federal/Republic types. I understand now why the war was fought if YOU ARE AN INDICATION of reverse projection into the past - it just pisses me off the arrogance of it all.
If I had ancestors who wore blue I would hang my head in shame for what Lincoln's minions wrought. I cannot understand the pride there is in that, never will...
Keep trying. I know you will.
Like this?
Abraham Lincoln “was a racist who opposed equal rights for black people, who loved minstrel shows, who used the N-word, who wanted to deport all blacks,” a veteran journalist and historian says.
“There has been a systematic attempt to keep the American public from knowing the real Lincoln and the depth of his commitment to white supremacy,” says Lerone Bennett Jr., whose new book, “Forced Into Glory: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream,” examines Lincoln's record.
Lincoln envisioned and advocated an all-white West, declaring at Alton, Ill., in 1858, that he was “in favor of our new territories being in such a condition that white men may find a home ... as an outlet for free white people everywhere, the world over.”
Lincoln supported his home state's law, passed in 1853, forbidding blacks to move to Illinois. The Illinois state constitution, adopted in 1848, called for laws to “effectually prohibit free persons of color from immigrating to and settling in this state.”
Lincoln blamed blacks for the Civil War, telling them, “But for your race among us there could not be a war, although many men engaged on either side do not care for you one way or another.”
Lincoln claimed that “the people of Mexico are most decidedly a race of mongrels. I understand that there is not more than one person there out of eight who is pure white.”
“That's the simple truth of the matter”
Really? Y'all forgot to mention that the Union cause was overflowing with known Marxist!
“blacks were by then already voting citizens.”
The North has nothing to do with the Negroes. I have no more concern for them than I have for the Hottentots. . . . They are not of our race. (In Klingaman, Abraham Lincoln and the Road to Emancipation, p. 295)
“Free people of color” were welcome in few places. In the North they were almost universally segregated, excluded from public life, and their children barred from white public schools. In those areas where separate Negro schools were provided they were inadequately financed and instruction was poor. . . .
The situation of the black American when the war ended was ambiguous. . . . Northerners as a whole, willing to concede freedom, were hostile to equality. Many of them dreaded an incursion of black folk after the war—especially among lower paid workers who feared Negro competition and some not so poorly paid who resented possible Negro entry into their crafts. The use of Negroes as strikebreakers during the war and their employment in areas where whites were out of work resulted in agitation and riots and intensified anti-Negro feeling.
Such sentiment, however, was by no means confined to workingmen. Between 1865 and 1867 voters in Connecticut , Wisconsin , and Ohio rejected proposals for Negro suffrage [the right to vote]; in 1868 only 8 out of 16 Northern states permitted Negroes to vote. Oregon even continued its pre-war prohibition against the entry of free Negroes. . . . (The Negro in Reconstruction, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1969, pp. 6, 12-13)
There can be no doubt that many blacks were sorely mistreated in the North and West. Observers like Fanny Kemble and Frederick L. Olmsted mentioned incidents in their writings. Kemble said of Northern blacks, “They are not slaves indeed, but they are pariahs, debarred from every fellowship save with their own despised race. . . . All hands are extended to thrust them out, all fingers point at their dusky skin, all tongues . . . have learned to turn the very name of their race into an insult and a reproach.” Olmsted seems to have believed the Louisiana black who told him that they could associate with whites more freely in the South than in the North and that he preferred to live in the South because he was less likely to be insulted there. (From Slavery to Freedom: A History of African Americans, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2000, p. 185)
“You need to get over it.”
Speak the truth first!
Regards
They fought against a simple title {United STATE of America}..Understand?
“Federal Government strengthened.”
By Force,of course
Do you think “BroJoeK” understands the Antisemitism up North?
From
American Jewry and the Civil War—
On 21 January, Union General-in-Chief Henry W. Halleck wrote to Grant to explain the rescission of the order, stating that “The President has no objection to your expelling traitors and Jew peddlers, which, I suppose was the object of your order; but as it in terms proscribed an entire religious class, some of whom are fighting in our ranks, , the President deemed it necessary to revoke it.”
Captain Philip Trounstine of the Ohio Volunteer Cavalry, being unable in good conscience to round up and expel his fellow Jews, resigned his army commission, saying he could “no longer bear the Taunts and malice of his fellow officers… brought on by … that order.”
The officials responsible for the United States government's most vicious anti-Jewish actions ever were never dismissed, admonished or, apparently, even officially criticized for the religious persecution they inflicted on innocent citizens.
How about the Cherokee?
Throughout the Confederate States, we saw this great revolution effected without violence or suspension of the laws or the closing of the courts, The military power was nowhere placed above the civil authorities. None were seized and imprisoned at the mandate of arbitrary power. All division among the people disappeared, and the determination became unanimous that there should never again be any union with the Northern States. Almost as one man, all who were able to bear arms rushed to the defense of an invaded country, and nowhere has it been found necessary to compel men TO SERVE, or to enlist mercenaries by the offer of extraordinary bounties.
But, in the Northern States, the Cherokee people saw with alarm a violated constitution, all civil liberty put in peril, and all rules of civilized warfare and the dictates of common humanity and decency unhesitatingly disregarded. In states which still adhered to the Union, a military despotism had displaced the civil power and the laws became silent amid arms. Free speech and almost free thought became a crime. The right of the writ of habeas corpus, guaranteed by the constitution, disappeared at the nod of a Secretary of State or a general of the lowest grade. The mandate of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was at naught by the military power, and this outrage on common right, approved by a President sworn to support the constitution. War on the largest scale was waged, and the immense bodies of troops called into the field in the absence of any law warranting it under the pretense of suppressing unlawful combination of men.
The humanities of war, which even barbarians respect, were no longer thought worthy to be observed. Foreign mercenaries and the scum of the cities and the inmates of prisons were enlisted and organized into brigades and sent into Southern States to aid in subjugating a people struggling for freedom, to burn, to plunder, and to commit the basest of outrages on the women.
While the heels of armed tyranny trod upon the necks of Maryland and Missouri, and men of the highest character and position were incarcerated upon suspicion and without process of law, in jails, in forts, and prison ships, and even women were imprisoned by the arbitrary order of a President and Cabinet Ministers; while the press ceased to be free, and the publication of newspapers was suspended and their issues seized and destroyed.
The officers and men taken prisoners in the battles were allowed to remain in captivity by the refusal of the Government to consent to an exchange of prisoners; as they had left their dead on more than one field of battle that had witnessed their defeat, to be buried and their wounded to be cared for by southern hands”
If praying to your god Lincoln could bring rain to Texas, I might do it.
Here was some action by the Secretary of State, who had been deputized in such matters by the rain god. From the OR; my bold below.
HEADQUARTERS,
Fort Hamilton, N. Y., July 31, 1861.
Colonel E. D. TOWNSEND,
Asst. Adjt. General, Hdqrs. of the Army, Washington City, D. C.
SIR: I have this day received at Fort Lafayette the following named prisoners charged with offenses against the United States Government, viz; R. H. Alvey, John H. Kusick, John W. Davis, Dr. Edward Johnson, T. C. Fitzpatrick, William H. Gatchell, Charles M. Hagelin, Charles Howard, Samuel C. Lyon, James E. Humphrey or Murphrey.
Please inform me if I shall consider them in the same light in the event of a writ of habeas corpus as I do Ruggles and McGuillam and whether I shall make the same return (if required) as I have already done in the case of McGuillam. The prisoners were sent here by order of Major General John A. Dix, commanding Department of Maryland.
I have the honor to be, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
MARTIN BURKE,
Colonel First Artillery, Commanding
------------------------
HEADQUARTERS OF THE ARMY, Washington, August 2, 1861.
Lieutenant Colonel MARTIN BURKE, U. S. Army,
Commanding, &c., No. 6 State Street, New York City:
Should the writ of habeas corpus come for the production in court of any of your political prisoners you will respond thereto that you deeply regret that pending existing political troubles you cannot comply with the requisition of the honorable judge.
WINFIELD SCOTT
------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, August 8, 1861.
Lieutenant General WINFIELD SCOTT, Washington
GENERAL: This Department having received information to the effect that the late police commissioners of Baltimore now confined at Fort Lafayette, New York Harbor, have taken measures to sue out a writ of habeas corpus I will thank you to direct by telegraph the officer in command there not to obey the writ.
I have the honor to be, your obedient servant,
WILLIAM H. SEWARD
------------------------
FORT HAMILTON, N. Y., August 12, 1861.
Lieutenant-General SCOTT, U. S. Army:
There is an attachment issued for my person and it is reported that a posse will try to execute the writ and take the prisoners from Fort Lafayette. Shall I resist or what course shall I pursue?
MARTIN BURKE,
Colonel
------------------------
HEADQUARTERS OF THE ARMY,
Washington, August 13, 1861.
Colonel HENRY L. SCOTT,
Inspector-General, Commanding, &c., New York:
Fort Lafayette is threatened with an attack by the sheriff and his posse to seize Colonel Burke. Send him a re-enforcement of some companies of volunteers which have been mustered into service without delay.
WINFIELD SCOTT
This was in New York. Had New York been invaded? The courts were working fine there weren't they?
Contemporary newspapers confirm what was going on. A Judge Garrison had ordered the writ served on the commander of the fort. From the New Orleans Daily Picayune of August 16, 1861:
The Habeas Corpus Case in New York
NEW YORK, Aug. 15. -- Judge Garrison has made a formal application for forces to execute his writs.
The officials replied they could obtain about 1400 men, but that the county had no artillery sufficiently powerful to impress the walls of Fort Lafayette, and here the matter rests.
And here an excerpt from an August 15, 1861, article in a New York paper, the Brooklyn Eagle, the largest evening paper in the country back then:
>... it may be of interest to those who do not know the locality to state that Fort Lafayette stands about 200 yards from the main shore at Fort Hamilton. Fort Lafayette possesses comparatively but little strength; this part of the bay is protected by Fort Hamilton on this side and by Fort Richmond on the other, but little reliance being placed on Fort Lafayette, which in the event of a conflict between the forts and hostile vessels could hardly fail to be destroyed by the fire from Forts Richmond and Hamilton. ... it is said that the force now under control of the Government in the Bay could resist a State force of 10,000 men, should any such number be called upon to enforce the decree of the Court. ...
... The militia of the county is in peacetime about 1,500 men; one regiment from this district is at the seat of war, and the home force is now less than 1,000 men.
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.