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
but we can count on heyworth, the HATER of everything dixie, to give us a SIMPLISTIC & therefore INACCURATE account of a very complex historical situation.
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
free the southland,sw
if you have a damnedyankee for a friend, you don't need an enemy.
free dixie,sw
I was wondering if you were going to acknowledge me today. Have you contacted Dr. Lubar to confirm your accusation that I've fabricated his response yet? Or are you going to duck the issue?
Lincoln's attacks upon Texas' borders in the Mexican War - It's one of those things that even the most avid Lincoln cultist never has a straight answer for. Lincoln used his position as a congressman to give AID AND COMFORT TO THE ENEMY of the United States and of Texas during the Mexican War. All these "Lincoln had to defend American sovereignty" types overlook the fact that Lincoln himself took Mexico's position WRT the Texas border in 1846.
You here that capitan? In 1846 American troops were fighting and dying to defend the border of the United States at the Rio Grande. The Mexicans even crossed that border and FIRED THE FIRST SHOT (sound familiar?) onto those troops who were doing nothing more than occupying a defensive position on U.S. soil at a place where a hostile enemy had been invading and raiding for the better part of a decade. And what does Lincoln do in the middle of all this? He stands on the floor of the House of Representatives, claims that Texas doesn't have a right to the Rio Grande border and should draw back somewhere around the Nueces, makes a not so subtle implication that Texas didn't properly win its independence in the first place by erroniously suggesting that the Treaty of Velasco was illegitimate, and more or less sticks it to the thousands of American troops who were down there putting their lives on the line to protect the good people of Texas!
Abe Lincoln was a regular Dennis Kucinich of his day and did everything you accuse the copperheads and confederates of and worse during a time of war by giving material aid and comfort to an enemy that was actively trying to wrest away about a third of the State of Texas - something that Lincoln evidently had no problem with whatsoever.
Certainly:
In short, whatever Lincoln felt was necessary to snuff out the insurrection was proper and justified. "Wanton" violence was improper, but ultimately, the judge of the degree of violence necessary can only be the belligerent. The fact that we have latter-day neo-rebs (or unreconstructed rebels by birth!) on this forum suggests to me that Lincoln and the Armies of the North and West did an inadequate job "to secure the object of the hostilities." [emphaise mine]And while you're at it, justify your "623,000 of our finest men died" statement. Cite your source for that hyperbole.1,251 posted on 09/16/2004 1:49:54 PM EDT by capitan_refugio [Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1243 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Most historians and sources place the direct casualties (battlefield deaths/latter death from wounds) of the war somewhere between 600,000 and 640,000. The one I commonly saw was 623,000+, another has it at 624,000+. In case your having problems comprehending "our finest men", it refers to those of both sides, not just Confederates.
It seems that some of you are not equally up to the job and run to the moderators because you are unable to dominate the discussion with your off-the-wall theories. Stop acting like a bunch of sissies and step up to the plate.
I've been here for years, providing sources and documentation.
If what you refer to the text of Taney's internal opinion as Atty Gen. in the Jackson Cabinet, I can assure you it is 100% factual.
Putting that issue aside for a moment, in #1558 you had responded to GOPCapitalist:
You have never answered a question I posed. Do you believe that Taney was correct when he said, "The negro has no rights the white man is bound to respect"? [emphasis mine]I responded in #1564:
You quote is not found in the text [*I'm shocked*] The correct citation is this:Referring to your assertion in #1591 that Taney as AG was racist, both nolu chan and myself responded. In #1593 nolu chan wrote "[a]n interpretation of what the law says is not the same as one's personal opinion." In #1595 I wrote the "statement is not his personal opinion, it's a statement regarding the factual, legal condition of blacks in the United States of America." We both then cited from his defense of Rev. Gruber, where Taney stated, "while it continues it is a blot on our national character, and every real lover of freedom confidently hopes that it will be effectually, though it must be gradually, wiped away." Hardly the words of a man pining for it's continuation, in fact, Taney looked forward to the time it ended, "when we can point without a blush, to the language of the Declaration of Independence [ALL mean are created equal]".But the public history of every European nation displays it in a manner too plain to be mistaken. They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect." [emphasis in original]Taey [sic] is NOT maintaining the position you attribute to him [*I'm shocked*], but noting that for the past century every European nation had done so.
I next consider the President's statement that Santa Anna in his treaty with Texas, recognised the Rio Grande, as the western boundary of Texas. Besides the position, so often taken that Santa Anna, while a prisoner of war--a captive--could not bind Mexico by a treaty, which I deem conclusive--besides this, I wish to say something in relation to this treaty, so called by the President, with Santa Anna. - Abraham Lincoln, U.S. House of Representatives, 1/12/1846
The parts I bolded are key as they indicate Lincoln was being outright derisive and contemptful towards the document we know today as the Treaty of Velasco. To use his his own words, he "deem[ed]" it "conclusive" that this "so called" treaty was illegitimate. Any Texas who knows his history should be outright offended at that statement because the Treaty of Velasco was to Texas what Cornwallis' surrender and the Treaty of Paris of 1773 were to the 13 colonies - that is to say, Velasco ended the Texas Revolution and secured Texas' sovereignty in the world.
Put another way, to deny the Treaty of Velasco is to deny the sovereign legitimacy of the Republic of Texas (which Santa Anna later tried to do when he reneged on his word after Houston graciously set him free when he just as easily could have executed the dictator as many at the time wanted). Further, for Lincoln's comments to come in the middle of a war when Mexican troops were shooting at Americans and actively attempting to assert a claim over about a third of the state is outright treasonable more than anything any confederate ever did because unlike the confederates, who openly professed their opposition to the former U.S. government upon severing their ties with it, Lincoln's subversive assault upon the sovereignty of Texas came while he was still actively claiming to be a friend and agent of the United States.
And to top it all off, a simple glance at the history of Velasco reveals that Lincoln was perpetrating a falsehood when he claimed that it did not set the border at the Rio Grande!
An original copy of the second half of the treaty exists in the Texas Archives: http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/treasures/republic/velasco-private-1.html
Article 4 explicitly defines the boundary of the Republic of Texas' territory: " A treaty of Commerce, Amity and limits will be established between Mexico and Texas. The territory of the latter not to extend beyond the Rio. Bravo del Norte."
"Has" - current rights, "had" - past rights. Taney refers to a century of past rights. Not current or future.
"Bernard E. Bee (son of the republic's secretary of state and a leading republic-era miltary figure in his own right), his brother Hamilton Bee, and Albert Sydney Johnston (secretary of war for the republic and texas revolution hero) all attained fame as confederate generals."
Bernard Bee was killed at Bull Run 1 and A.S. Johnston at Shiloh--two very early battles. Bee is mostly remembered for his line "There stands Jackson like a stonewall." It was considered admiring in its day but now is thought to be more like "There stands Jackson like a stonewall. Damn! Why doesn't he move? The fight is here!"
And also two very important ones. My point, of course, had nothing to do with where they were killed but rather with the fact that these men, all leading political and military figures in the Republic of Texas and/or its early days of statehood (aka the 'founding fathers' of Texas) sided with the south.
"There stands Jackson like a stonewall. Damn! Why doesn't he move? The fight is here!"
Is that the latest to emerge from the revisionists? I suppose it doesn't trouble itself with trying to explain why Bee is reported to have immediately followed that sentence with "Rally behind the Virginians!"
I believe stand watie was the leader of the Indian contingent in Van Dorn's army at Pea Ridge. They wiped out a Union battery but then pretty well left the fight to do some scalping and dancing. Van Dorn went on to greater glory by getting himself killed by an irate husband.
You notice he said behind the Virginians. In other words, let them do some fighting.
To know that necessarily entails taking substantial interpretive liberties with the contextual meanings of language used at an event from which you are 140 years removed. The simple fact that such a contingency-oriented interpretation, in all its bizarre renderings, did not emerge until very recently is reason in itself to scrape it away upon the devices of Mr. Ockham.
Agreed. From Sam Houston himself [Source: Philadelphia Public Ledger newspaper of May 31, 1861 quoting from the Houston Telegraph newspaper]:
Better meet war in its deadliest shape, than cringe before an enemy whose wrath we have provoked. I make no pretense as to myself. I have yielded up office and sought retirement to preserve peace among our people. My services, perhaps, are not important enough to be desired; others are, perhaps, more competent to lead the people through this revolution. I have been with them through the fiery ordeal once, and I know that with prudence and discipline their courage will surmount all obstacles. Should the locain [? can't read] of war, calling forth the people to resist the invader, reach the retirement to which I shall go, I will heed neither the denunciations of my enemies or the charms of my own fireside; but will join the ranks of my countrymen to defend Texas once again.
May I take it by your postings that your purpose on this thread entails the childish belittling of confederate generals upon mention of their names whether or not the object over which their names were introduced has anything to do with your response? Odd.
I couldn't have said it better, literally.
Well aren't you just a bucket of self contradictions!
You could give me a little credit. I didn't point out that Houston's Indian name was Big Drunk, well earned. Now you may have the last word.
An original copy of the second half of the treaty exists in the Texas Archives: http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/treasures/republic/velasco-private-1.html
Who's propagating half truths now? What Lincoln is referring to is the first half of the treaty--the public half. The part you're referring to is the secret, second treaty. And here's what the Texas State Library site you linked to says about it: "On May 26, General Vicente Filisola began withdrawing Mexican troops in fulfillment of the public treaty. However, the Texas army blocked Santa Anna's release by the Texas government. Moreover, the Mexican government refused to accept the treaties on the grounds that Santa Anna had signed them as a captive. Since the treaties had now been violated by both sides, they never took effect. Mexico was not to recognize Texas independence until the U.S.-Mexican War was settled by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848. "
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.