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
Such is the plight of traitors.
Given the political season, if you ignoring the "elephant in the room," you must then certainly pay close attention to the "ass" in the room!
That particular cleansing (the blight of human slavery and those who would enslave) started, one might argue, with the emancipation proclamation. You are evidence, however, of a job unfinished.
When you have nothing worth adding to the debate, call someone a Nazi. Your shtick is getting old.
The ACW provided a stark contrast between those who sought out the "better angels of our nature" and those who propagated the last vestige of barbarianism.
If you can't stand up and argue the positive aspects of human slavery, you don't deserve to call yourself a neo-rebel! Protecting and glorifying the institution of slavery is what the CSA was all about.
Whimper and whine. Whatever alleged voting irregularities might have occurred (I notice, as is your practice, allegations with no evidence, source or substantiation - You really ought to consider a job at C-BS), it had no effect on the election. A dictator would not have had an opponent in an election, and certainly not a popular, though somewhat disgraced, general.
No source. No citation. No rationale.
Then you agree they were revolutionaries, acting outside of the law.
The EP was a military tactic by Lincoln that attempted to free slaves in a foreign country, freeing NO slaves in his own. Lincoln had no power under US, military or international law to end slavery. The EP freed no one. It was designed to prevent European aid to the Confederacy, and to cause slaves to revolt against their masters as in Haiti. In other words, the men were off fighting, so old Abe wanted slaves to slaughter the remaining old men, innocent women and children left on the homefront.
You are evidence, however, of a job unfinished.
Again, your wishes for the death and slaughter of then Confederates, their wives and families, as well as anyone that happens to disagree with you is fitting for ethnic cleansing?
Idi, is that you? What's that on your armband? Is your right arm raised stiffly in salute? Do you believe in a master race? Why do you desire the death and extermination of those that disagree with you?
"The overwhelming majority of southerners ... fought because Lincoln's army was on their doorsteps shooting at them, and when you get shot the obvious thing to do is shoot back!"
The overwhelming majority of southerners, even excluding free and enslaved blacks, did not fight at all.
To the extent that those in the south who did take up arms, largely took them up in the southern cause, is accepted fact.
I would add to the list the border slave state of Maryland (and possibly Delaware too), which provided a large number of troops to both sides. And, though there are some who would deny it, a substantial number of aboriginal Americans fought "for the Union" (recognizing that inter-tribal rivalries may have been a more significant factor in their alliances).
It doesn't matter to me where you were born. I see in the neo-reb posts lots of righteous indignation, and little substantiation.
Renouncing American citizenship is against the law???? ROTFLM*I!!!
Mitchell v Harmony. Previously posted.
What passes in you as a rational thought process is astounding.
Oh is that what you call it? Cause I'm certain I remember reading of rape, pillage, and plunder throughout the "cleansing" you so proudly hoist up. Don't worry though as you are not alone. Marx called it a "cleansing" too.
You seem to be having temporal problems today. I was talking about the ACW. You responded by "citing" a "later decision" and then you cite a pre-war case about the Mexican-American War, which isn't at all analogous.
Yeah, and for a reason - there are certain times when one may justly take the life of a non-innocent, for example a murderer. Heck, even unintended civilian casualties in a war can, in certain times, be tolerable so long as you are making a conscious effort to minimize them in every way possible (kinda like Bush did in Iraq). But intentionally going out of ones way to wage warfare upon innocent civilians like Lincoln and his henchmen did is out of the question.
Let me simplify. In war, you have the right to kick the crap out of the enemy and to utterly destroy his war-making capacity.
Right? And exactly who gave you that "right," capitan?
Interesting that you would mention Thomas Jackson. Jackson was an early proponent of fighting a "psychological" war - one designed to break the will of the enemy.
Indeed he was, and all for the better. Jackson's psychological attack was to "show them the bayonet" as he often said. And the recipients of that bayonet being representative of a morally unjust effort of conquest, he was absolutely right in doing so. The soldier who I meet in battle is not always a perpetrator of evil - he shoots not because he hates me or wants something of mine, but rather for the same reason I shoot at him: the fact that if I do not, I will certainly get shot myself. The criminal who violates my land and property with an intent to physically harm me, however, is different as are armies composed of him. By making the initial violation in his very presence and intent of being there, he forfeits any claim he might have had to mercy on the battlefield.
There were a great many southerners in the areas I listed who "sat out" the war.
Then provide statistical data, that is if you can.
Yeah, and for a reason - there are certain times when one may justly take the life of a non-innocent, for example a murderer. Heck, even unintended civilian casualties in a war can, in certain times, be tolerable so long as you are making a conscious effort to minimize them in every way possible (kinda like Bush did in Iraq). But intentionally going out of ones way to wage warfare upon innocent civilians like Lincoln and his henchmen did is out of the question.
Let me simplify. In war, you have the right to kick the crap out of the enemy and to utterly destroy his war-making capacity.
Right? And exactly who gave you that "right," capitan?
Interesting that you would mention Thomas Jackson. Jackson was an early proponent of fighting a "psychological" war - one designed to break the will of the enemy.
Indeed he was, and all for the better. Jackson's psychological attack was to "show them the bayonet" as he often said. And the recipients of that bayonet being representative of a morally unjust effort of conquest, he was absolutely right in doing so. The soldier who I meet in battle is not always a perpetrator of evil - he shoots not because he hates me or wants something of mine, but rather for the same reason I shoot at him: the fact that if I do not, I will certainly get shot myself. The criminal who violates my land and property with an intent to physically harm me, however, is different as are armies composed of him. By making the initial violation in his very presence and intent of being there, he forfeits any claim he might have had to mercy on the battlefield.
There were a great many southerners in the areas I listed who "sat out" the war.
Then provide statistical data, that is if you can.
I have a feeling that Whiskey Papa will be back after the election.
I see you are in fine form today. Your disciples here have served you well.
Long on rhetoric. Short on substantiation.
Case in point. In your rant you accuse the Union forces of - "the intentional BURNING/LOOTING of CHURCHES & SYNAGOGUES for personal profit"
I have nothing against personal profit, but how does one financially gain from burning a house of worship, except maybe through insurance fraud? Mean what you say and say what you mean. Looting is thievery and should be punished. BTW, Bill Klinton vividly remembered black churches being burned in Arkansas when he was a child. Unfortunately for him, it never happened. I suspect, short of documentation to the contrary, you suffer from the same "memory" problem.
Let me pose the question a different way, by analogy. Do you think that the US forces in Iraq would be justified by destroying a mosque used by insurgents as a sniping position? I'll tip my hand - they ought to drop a fuel-air explosive on the sucker.
Simply admit that Lincoln was flawed and you don't need to justify his actions in the worst cases. Heck, they can still maintain he was a generally good guy for all I care. I'll still disagree and say that he did more bad than good, but I'll thank them for conceding that he did indeed do some bad and chalk the rest up to a difference of opinion. But they can't even bring themselves to do that! It's this goofy, insane, and ideologically bizarre insistance that Lincoln was without fault (or, even more amazing, without fault except that he wasn't even MORE brutal - those are the wierdest Lincophiles, the ones who think he was too "generous" toward the south!). When people take an all or nothing view of historical figures it makes them worship those flawed figures and justify or deny every one of their faults no matter how bad they may be. Resorting to the arguments of Stalinism thus becomes perfectly acceptable.
Not the people. Just the idea. The idea of a permanent slave state in North America was, and remains, repugnant to any civilized person.
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.