Lincoln’s 'Great Crime': The Arrest Warrant for the Chief Justice

Lew Rockwell.com ^ | August 19, 2004 | Thomas J. DiLorenzo

[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

[nolu chan]

[cr #1845] That may be the case and the custom now, where the justices exchange drafts and comments, and make revisions, but back in the 1850's, it was not the case. In fact, Taney would not even make a preliminary copy of the decision that he read available to Curtis. That is why the rule for prompt delivery to the Clerk existed.

The rule did not exist to enable a disgruntled justice to obtain an advance copy of a decision to use the press to attack the decision before it was published.

As you know, Justice Curtis made his dissenting opinion available to news sources before the case was officially published. Justice Curtis made a request to William Carroll, Clerk of the Supreme Court, for an advance copy of the as-yet unpublished Taney opinion, presumably, to use the press to attack the Court. Chief Justice Taney, and Justices Daniel and Wayne were the only other justices who remained in Washington. All three of the other justices joined in directing the Clerk of the Court not to issue a copy of the opinion to anyone until it had been officially published in Howard's Reports.

When Curtis complained by letter to Taney, the Chief Justice properly put Justice Curtis in his place. "It would seem from your letter to me that you suppose you are entitled to demand it as a right, being one of the members of the tribunal. This would undoubtedly be the case if you wished it to aid you in the discharge of your official duties. But I understood you as not desiring or intending it for that purpose. On the contrary, you announced from the Bench that you regarded this opinion as extrajudicial -- and not binding upon you or anyone else."

Further, Taney wrote, "There is not one historical fact, nor one principle of constitutional law, or common law, or chancery law, or statute law in the prnted opinion which was not distinctly announced and maintained from the Bench; nor is there any one historical fact, or principle, or point of law, which was affirmed in the opinion from the Bench, omitted or modified, or in any degree altered, in the printed opinion."

What Taney had added was proofs and authorities to support historical facts and established legal principles. The original opinion stated they were too well established to be open to dispute. However, the dissent disputed them, in the manner of capitan_refugio #237 saying "Bollman was not about habeas corpus." So, Taney went back and added the proofs and citations to authority.

None of the other six members of the 7-man majority questioned what Taney did, even after it was published.

On the other hand, Justice Curtis was ostracized and by September he had submitted his resignation from the Court.

The justices who joined to form a 7-man majority voted on the holding, not the dicta. The holding did not change.

[nolu chan]

If one assumes the legality of secession, then all the previously Federal property within the jurisdiction of Texas went to Texas, subject to payment of restitution.

[Chickamauga]

I really don't know the details of the handover and I am a long way from home and my library. I do think that no one had a good word for him. Most officers who went south were meticulous about resigning before taking any action against the US. Some even fought on the Union side in an early battle before resigning. It was a matter of honor and they thought Twiggs had acted dishonorably and had thereby cast shame on the Rebel cause.

[capitan_refugio]

"The rule did not exist to enable a disgruntled justice to obtain an advance copy of a decision to use the press to attack the decision before it was published."

It wasn't an "advanced copy." Curtis requested the text of what Taney had already read aloud in court.

"As weeks passed, and Taney's full opinion [of March 5] did not appear in print, the word spread he was undertaking extensive revisions. The rumor had reached McLean by the end of march, and he wrote to Montgomery Blair: "Can it be true that the opinion of the court has been modified in the Dred Scott case? This, it appears to me, to be unusual, if not improper...."

"The rumor worried Justice Curtis especially, for his dissent had been keyed to Taney's opinion at many points. On April 2, he wrote to William T. Carroll, Clerk of the Supreme Court, asking for a copy of the opinion whenever it should be available in printed form. Carrol replied four days later that he had been directed not to give anyone a copy of the opinion before it was published officially in Howard's Reports. The directive had been issued by the Chief Justice with the concurrence of Daniel and Wayne, the only justices remaining in Washington after the close of the term...."

"Curtis then wrote to Taney for an explanation, saying that he did not suppose the Chief Justice intended to deny him access to the opinion of the Court. Taney responded with a hostile letter implying that Curtis wanted the opinion for use by partisan critics of the Court. 'It would seem from your letter to me,' he wrote, 'that you suppose you are entitled to demand it as a right, being one of the members of the tribunal. This would undoubtedly be the case if you wished it to aid you in the discharge of your official duties. But I understood you as not desiring or intending it for that purpose. On the contrary, you announced from the Bench that you regarded this opinion as extrajudicial - and not binding you or anyone else.' Thus Taney made it plain that he resented the content of Curtis's dissenting opinion, as well as its early release for publication...."

"In a letter dated May 13, [Curtis] ... questioned the authority of the three justices to impose such a restriction without first consulting their colleagues, and suggested it was a violation of the rules of the Court to withhold an opinion for so long a time. He reasserted his own right to examine an opinion of the Court that, according to reports, had been 'materially altered' since its oral delivery."

The Chief Justice fumed for nearly a month before firing off an eleven-page answer." (The preceding paragraphs from Fehrenbacher, pp 316-317)

"As you know, Justice Curtis made his dissenting opinion available to news sources before the case was officially published."

Curtis made his dissent available to the press after the decision was announced and read by Taney, and within the normal timeframe of publishing a decision. Taney delayed the Dred Scott decision from early March to late May because he was dishonestly modifying it.

"What Taney had added was proofs and authorities to support historical facts and established legal principles. The original opinion stated they were too well established to be open to dispute."

That was Taney's dishonest, twisted rationalization. On page 320 of Fehrenbacher's book, the Professor lists some of the changes made by Taney. Fehrenbacher notes:

"1. Five paragraphs (19 Howard 428-430) supplementing a passage of three paragraphs in which Taney defended the right of the Court to examine the facts in the case after having upheld the plea in abatement. All eight paragraphs are plainly rebuttal to the assertion of Curtis (and McLean) that much of Taney's opinion was without authority."

"2. Fifteen paragraphs (19 Howard 442-446) in which Taney attempted to reconcile his views on the territory clause with those of John Marshall in American Insurance Company v Canter. This was likewise rebuttal, but primarily to McLean rather than Curtis.

"3. Three paragraphs (19 Howard 453-454, near the end of the opinion, denounce the manner in which the case had been brought before the Supreme court. This introduced a new question that had not been argued by counsel."

[capitan_refugio]

"However, the dissent disputed them, in the manner of capitan_refugio #237 saying "Bollman was not about habeas corpus."

To return to the Bollman matter for a moment. Bollman was about what constituted "treason." Leonard Levy writes in The Encyclopedia of the American Constitution that in Ex parte Bollman & Swartout, "Chief Justice John Marshall, for the Court, distinguished treason from conspiracy to commit it. He sought to prevent the crime of treason from being 'extended by construction to doubtful cases.' To complete the crime of treason or levying war, Marshall said, a body of men must be 'actually assembled for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable purpose.'"

Levy added that, "Bollman is also an important precedent in the law of federal jurisdiction. In obiter dictum, Marshall stated that a federal court's power to issue a writ of habeas corpus 'must be given by law,' denying by inference that the courts have any inherent power to grant habeas corpus relief, apart from congressional authorization."

As to which branch(es) of the government had the right to suspend the habeas privilege was not a point argued in the case.

[rustbucket]

Ah, yes, the 4,000+ post deleted thread that ended in insults and inappropriate remarks. I left that thread for an hour or two. It was getting out of control. When I came back, it had been deleted. It was a shame because there was some useful history on the thread.

Twiggs was quite concerned about holding off until the official March 2 date of Texas secession. I gather he did not want to act before then, but the situation got beyond his control. The Texans apparently realized that Twiggs was about to be replaced with a strong Unionist. They forced the issue of the surrender of the forts, etc., by capturing Twiggs and his command before the Unionist could take charge. They may have felt they could negotiate a better deal with Twiggs than with his successor. Probably so.

You asked about Lee. As I mentioned, I don't think Lee approved of what Twiggs did, though I don't know what Lee would have done. Probably outsmart all his opponents.

Twiggs' home state, Georgia, had already seceded, of course, a month before all this happened. Twiggs requested that he be relieved of command on January 13. He didn't find out that he had been relieved of command until about February 15, the day before the Texas troops captured him.

I gather Twiggs was still technically in charge until his replacement showed up. His own report on the incident rationalizes that there would have been immediate conflict if he did not agree to the demands of the Commissioners. Maybe, maybe not.

[capitan_refugio]

"Ah, yes, the 4,000+ post deleted thread that ended in insults and inappropriate remarks. I left that thread for an hour or two. It was getting out of control. When I came back, it had been deleted. It was a shame because there was some useful history on the thread."

I was gone for a couple of days to drive my oldest daughter to college. But I was not surprised one bit!

[rustbucket]

I really don't know the details of the handover and I am a long way from home and my library.

I hate it when that happens. The Official Records are a useful away-from-home source (Official Records).

Twiggs was vilified by the North and celebrated by the South. From The New York Times of March 6, 1861:

GENERAL TWIGGS AT NEW ORLEANS

New Orleans, Tuesday, March 5, 1861

Gen. Twiggs was enthusiastically received this evening. A salute was fired, and he was escorted to his residence by the military, members of the Convention, etc. Immense crowds gathered along the line of procession.

In reply to the welcome, Gen. Twiggs said he hoped Providence would grant him sufficient strength to take part in the momentous struggle which threatens the country.

Most Northern accounts I've seen of Twiggs' surrender leave out the fact that he was surrounded and captured. If Twiggs' replacement, Col. Waite, had been in San Antonio when the letter relieving Twiggs' of his command arrived, it would have been Col. Waite in the hot seat. The war might well have started at this point. Immovable object and unstoppable force.

Had Twiggs remained in command into March, he would likely have ended up surrendering his troops and forts to the state on March 2, much like he was forced to do in February. That may be what he is really reviled for.

Northerners disagreed with the states rights position that Twiggs had taken. Twiggs no doubt felt that the states were sovereign and the Federal government was their creation and servant, not their master. Like Lee, his primary allegiance was to his home state, not the Federal government.

[rustbucket]

Hmmm. My link didn't work Try this instead.

[lentulusgracchus]

I had sat down to answer your pusillanimous ravings to me and hit "post" only to find the thread pulled, and my post lost. On reading your posts again, I wonder why I bothered. Of course, you would interpret silence, risibly, as some sort of acquiescence.

Et tu, lentulus. Have you no shame?

That should be, et tu, lentule. Although Caesar's actual mot was in Greek: kai su, teknon, the significance being that Caesar used the word for "child" that a parent uses to his offspring -- feeding the rumor that Brutus, son of Caesar's longtime paramour Servilia, was in fact his biological son. Which is appropriate here, since Plutarch has been widely accused by learned historians of having retailed a cheesy canard, and a slander on both Servilia and the Junii Bruti.

None of my posts are outrightly deceptive or dishonest.

Oh, please. You had plenty of chances to answer when it counted. Stop, you're killing me.

Whenever I make a mistake, I correct it.

No, you didn't.

There is nothing there dishonest or deceptive.

Yes, there is.

And you can me abusive?

Interesting slip of the keyboard. Yes, I "can" you.

Can you justify your personal attack "a liberal troll or a Marxist apparatchik"?

You keep quoting McPherson. That's all I need. But your technique, as much as your content was what was under review. Please try to read my posts for comprehension and keep up with us, will you? Your technique consists mostly of hairsplitting, conniving at wordplay, and sand in the eyes, served up with a generous dose of patronization and general abuse ad hominem, which is a favored Marxist and Clintonite brawling move.

You must not see my post conserning Tom McClintock and conservative activism in the liberal state like California. My conservative credentials are unquestionable.

Glad to hear you supported McClintock -- how about a link? Not that I don't trust you or anything.

If you have a problem with the posts, then refute them.

Done. You lied.

You don't do that, insterad you resort to personal attacks.

I post criticisms of your defective arguments and your appeal to Marxist authorities who are using American history to grind their red axes. I call you out on that. You reject my every post unless it's a cite-and-quote of authorities you approve of -- you're just like Wlat in that regard. You keep a personally supervised canon, and you accept nothing that is posted that lies outside that canon. You're parochial in your text, and you continually increase the standard of proof when other people post original material to you. Why should I accept homework assignments from the likes of you, especially knowing that you will wave aside anything else I put up? You are fundamentally dishonest in your argument in that you pretend to discuss these issues, but instead are eaten up with tendentiousness and a fierce determination to deny, deny, deny any argument, document, or fact which does not work to defend your fixity of opinion.

Furthermore, your own howler of a post about ethnic cleansing of the South indicts you more eloquently than any speech cobbled up by the best man on this board. You are fairly deserving of most of the obloquy that has been directed your way. I don't know whether you deserve all of it since I don't even pretend to a panoptic God-knowledge, but I'm pretty confident that most of it wasn't wasted.

I can take it, because of the fundamental correctness of my postion.

Like I just said. You mistake fixity for integrity -- obviously, since you disclose elsewhere that you have trouble with the concept of integrity.

The Republican Party is the "Party of Lincoln." As an avowed Lincoln-hater, this must really bother you, and must, in part, underlie your desire to have posts defending Lincoln and the cause of the North in the Civil War pulled.

Who is attacking whom now? You just accused me of intellectual dishonesty. Whereas, if you'd been around these threads a while, you would know I came to FR with a more or less open mind, and have been persuaded by argument and documentation that Lincoln's policy was devious -- and belligerent from the jump, even from years before. My position is that his policies, based on excavation of his actions, want a thoroughgoing and impartial investigation, and not the marmoreal and uncritical praise heaped on his every deed by the Northern historians, journalists, and generals whom he tyrannized for four years.

Your assignment of "Lincoln-hater" is unsupported and vicious. But par for you.

And the posts I asked the Mods to pull, were precisely those in which you practiced to deceive us, and were discovered by nolu chan and 4ConservativeJustices. I didn't ask them to perform a public cleansing of their forum by performing damnatio memoriae on all your posts.

I feel sorry for you.

Don't flatter yourself, Spot. You're in no position.

[lentulusgracchus]

How very embarrassing it must have been to you all to have been so unceremoniously slam dunked. Not only did the moderators not pull my posts, they pulled the whole thread instead. It seems your "tight-fisted temper tantrums" did not account to a hill of beans.

That the mods did not pull your posts is not an endorsement of your position. Your yowling is instead a fair guide, to anyone looking for who is the abuser of this forum, to your lack of character, and an endorsement in your own hand of my attribution to you of a number of failures in argument. Here, for example, you are using a failure of the mods to see a TOS issue in your practiced deception, as a kind of appeal to authority on the factuality of your posts (which is nonexistent, in the posts complained of).

Rather like an escaped bank robber's claiming that his escapes have established a new principle of law: all deposits are henceforth his by force.

[lentulusgracchus]

As to which branch(es) of the government had the right to suspend the habeas privilege was not a point argued in the case.

Here we go again. Link, please.

[nolu chan]

Unfortunately, capitan_refugio is dishonest and/or deceptive, as always.

As Fehrenbacher notes on the page 320 capitan_refugio quoted from, "Unfortunately, the opinion that Taney read from the bench was not preserved, and the newpaper summary is inadequate for systematic comparison with the published version."

In other words, your post is your typical crap.

Fehrenbacher continued, "There are, nevertheless, some indications of the extent to which he revised the original document."

[cr #1864] On page 320 of Fehrenbacher's book, the Professor lists some of the changes made by Taney. Fehrenbacher notes:

So in your twisted dementia, what was it that your quoted comment actually referred to? It could not refer to the unpreserved opinion read from the bench and you carefully excised the relevant material to dishonestly misrepresent what Fehrenbacher wrote.

Fehrenbacher, in the paragraph immediately preceding the changes you listed, said this, "This conclusion is partly confirmed by more definite evidence in the National Archives, where two different sets of page proofs of the Taney opinion have been preserved. Handwritten additions to the proofs constitute about eight pages of the version finally published."

As Fehrenbacher makes clear, nobody knows precisely what was read from the bench. What you quoted was additions to two page proofs, neither of which represents either the opinion as read from the bench, or the opinion as finally published.

On page 320 of Fehrenbacher's book, the Professor lists changes made by Taney to two page proofs. Without knowing what was read from the bench, it is not possible to know which parts of the page proofs were read from the bench and which parts were written later.

What you represent as Fehrenbacher listing "some of the changes made by Taney" inevitably leads the reader to wrongly conclude that this refers to changes to the Opinion as read from the bench by Taney.

[cr #1864] [cr #1864] It wasn't an "advanced copy." Curtis requested the text of what Taney had already read aloud in court

As Fehrenbacher relates on page 316, Justice McLean had written to Montgomery Blair on March 30, 1857, "Can it be true that the opinion of the court has been modified in the Dred Scott case?" James Harvey had written to Justice McLean on April 3, 1857, "Taney's had been twice copied for revision, and an application from the Intelligencer to publish was refused, owing to non-completion." Fehrenbacher wrote that "the rumor worried Justice Curtis." It was on April 2, 1857 that Justice Curtis tried to get his hands on an advance copy of the as-yet unpublished opinion. He knew full well he was not asking for a copy of what had been read from the bench, just as capitan_refugio knew. Three Supreme Court justices knew full well of his prior unethical conduct, both on and off the bench, and acted to prevent any such further misconduct. Within a few months, Justice Curtis had submitted his resignation from the Court.

[cr #1606 to nolu chan; Admin Moderator; All]

[cr #1606] How very embarrassing it must have been to you all to have been so unceremoniously slam dunked. Not only did the moderators not pull my posts, they pulled the whole thread instead. It seems your "tight-fisted temper tantrums" did not account to a hill of beans.

[nc] Nothing you have said in your #1636 or elsewhere has responded to the substance of my #1594. I repeat the essence of it here in condensed form.

I have not read Mitchell, but the description in the Hamdi footnote is that the plantiff was a US citizen.
-- capitan_refugio, #1370, 09/18/2004

The provided description is not in a footnote to anything. It is not from any Supreme Court decision. It was written by a public defender attorney and runs from the bottom of page 24 through the beginning of page 25 within the Petitition for a Writ of Certiorari.

Bollman was not about habeas corpus....
-- capitan_refugio, #237, 08/29/2004

Eric M. Freedman in Habeas Corpus, Rethinking the Great Writ of Liberty, devotes his chapters 3, 4, and 5 exclusively to Ex Parte Bollman.

Lemmon v the People was a case which foreshadowed Dred Scott. The Taney Court overturned a New York State statute which immediately freed slaves brought into the state. The decision guaranteed "sojourn and transit" and transit rights to slave-owners through free states. It did not address, to my knowledge, the issue of residence.
-- capitan_refugio, #386, 03/31/2004

The Supreme Court case of Lemmon v. The People does not exist.

Thank you for chiming in> I refer you to the text of Amy Warwick (1862): "But chiefly, the terms of the President's proclamation instituting [67 U.S. 635, 641]...."

The Supreme Court finds:

(1) The rebellion is an insurrection and not a war betwenn countries,
(2) The "so-called blockade" was not a blockade under international law, and (3) Closing the ports was a valid exercise of executive authority.

-- capitan_refugio, #649, 09/03/2004

On FINDLAW, bracketed comments in text of case [67 U.S. 635, 641] indicate this report starts at Volume 67, page 635 and you are at the beginning of page 641.

[nc] cr quotes are from pp. 640-642 of the Supreme Court Reporter.

The entirety of the quoted matter was from the Court Reporter's recitation of the Argument of Mr. Carlisle which runs from page 639 to 650. The Opinion of the Court by Mr. Justice Grier starts at page 665.

All of the findings attributed to the Court are argments of Mr. Carlisle. None was adopted by the Court.

| 635 | 639 | 640 | 641 | 650 | 665 | 682 | 699 |

[court reporter at p. 638] "The case of the Amy Warwick was argued by Mr. Dana, of Massachusetts, for Libellants...."
[court reporter at p. 639] "The Brilliante, by Mr. Eames, of Washington City, for Libellants, and by Mr. Carlisle, of Washington City, for Claimants."
[court reporter at p. 639] "One argument on each side is all that can be given. Those of Mr. Dana and Mr. Carlisle have been selected...."
[court reporter at p. 639] Begins presentation of argument by Mr. Carlisle.
[court reporter at p. 650] Ends presentation of argument by Mr. Carlisle.
[court reporter at p. 650] Begins presentation of argument by Mr. Dana.
[Opinion of the Court] Mr. Grier pp. 665 - 682.
[Dissenting Opinion] Mr. Nelson pp. 682 - 699.

[Non-Sequitur]

If one assumes the legality of secession, then all the previously Federal property within the jurisdiction of Texas went to Texas, subject to payment of restitution.

Even if the Texas secession were legal, Constitutionally only Congress can dispose of federal property. Twiggs did not have that authority. Never mind the fact that there was no payment for the property, offered or made.

[Non-Sequitur]

Here we go again. Link, please.

Here. Could you please point out who had suspended habeas corpus in this case?

[nolu chan]

[cr #1865] To return to the Bollman matter for a moment. Bollman was about what constituted "treason." Leonard Levy writes in The Encyclopedia of the American Constitution that....

Leonard Levy, Ph.D., UCHS class of 1940, is a retired professor of history who earned undergraduateand graduate degrees from Columbia University. He is a former Earl Warren Professor of Constitutional History and a former Dean at Brandeis University in Boston, Massachusetts.

History Professor Levy has also been cited as "Andrew W. Mellon All-Claremont Professor of Humanities and Chairman of the Graduate Faculty of History, Claremont Graduate School."

Eric M. Freedman is a professor of law.

Eric M. Freedman, Habeas Corpus, Rethinking the Great Writ of Liberty

From Amazon: "In this timely volume, Eric M. Freedman reexamines four of the Supreme Court's most important habeas corpus rulings: one by Chief Justice John Marshall in 1807 concerning Aaron Burr's conspiracy...."

As the Table of Contents shows, Chapters 3, 4, and 5 are devoted exclusively to Bollman,

[nolu chan]

For post graduate work, you must learn to selectively quote an author to radically change his meaning. For an example, see capitan_refugio #1864.

For extra credit, deny that Bollman is a habeas corpus case by citing something written in an enclyclopedia by a Claremont history professor. For an example, see capitan_refugio #1865.

[nolu chan]

[Non-Seq] Even if the Texas secession were legal, Constitutionally only Congress can dispose of federal property.

If secession were legal, the U.S. Constitution would not control outside its jurisdiction. International law would hold that fixed property would belong to the Republic of Texas.

[Non-Sequitur]

If secession were legal, the U.S. Constitution would not control outside its jurisdiction. International law would hold that fixed property would belong to the Republic of Texas.

Can you cite such law? And if international law said that the property would belong to Texas then doesn't that claim conflict with your statement in reply 1862 which made the ownership subject to payment? And if your claim in reply 1862 is the correct statement, payment was never made by the Republic of Texas, or never even offered, so that means that the facilities remained the property of the United States. Doesn't it?

[nolu chan]

For the WTBS era, for example, see the book by British barrister James Spence, American Union, p. 212., stating, "Secession, if lawful, gives no right to lighthouses without paying for them, and the fact of having built lighthouses is no answer to the right of secession. To leave a partnership is one thing; another, to settle accounts with the firm. The impression exists, that the people of the South proposed, from the first, to pay for all Federal property, and sent commissioners to Washington to arrange this.

As for your Ministry of Propaganda request for a citation of International Law, it is the "body of consensual principles which have evolved from customs and practices civilized nations utilize in regulating their relationships and such customs have great moral force. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matshshita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd., D.C.Pa., 494 F.Supp. 1161, 1178. International customs and treaties are generally considered to be the two most important sources of international law." Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.

I am certain you know full well that International Law is not codified for citation in the same manner as U.S. Federal Law. Nevertheless, the civilized world recognizes, and has recognized its existence, for many, many years.