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
Mr. Spence hit it right off the bat when he wrote, "Secession, if lawful...". One side of the equation held that the southern acts were not lawful so the offer to pay, if it ever was made, would be moot. The first side had no interest in selling. It can also be argued that since the British government never recognized confederate sovereignty then they did not consider the secession lawful either.
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.
That can be argued. The commissioners were sent to obtain recognition from the Lincoln government, and only once that was obtained to negotiate on issues of disagreement. Without the first condition being acceptable then the second part of the instructions are meaningless.
As for your Ministry of Propaganda request for a citation of International Law...
Don't have one, do you? Hence the lame attempt at insult.
Yes, tu quoque boss, but under the 1819 law if Mr. Sheperd had been able to produce evidence that he was a free man then he could settle in Illinois. It would only be if he had been unable to show proof that he was not a slave would he be subject to arrest and advertisement as a runaway. And if sent to indenture then that only lasted for a year. Slavery in Virginia could have been forever.
OK, perhaps you can tell us what precedent guided the international law clause that you cannot state? And a precedent from the 'WTBS' (War The Between States?) era might be more applicable than one involving two 20th century electronics firms.
Does this mean that Mexico still owns their government buildings in Texas from the pre-1836 period? Who owns the buildings and forts built by Spain before the Mexican Revolution?
Guess I'll have to take my passport the next time I visit Presidio la Bahia.
Of course not, because you are ignoring the fact that ownership of those passed to Texas, as agreed to by Texas AND Mexico when peace was signed between the two in 1845. The Treaty of Guadaloupe Hidalgo, signed between the U.S. and Mexico in 1848 settled who owned what when Texas was annexed. So you can put your passport away.
The troops in this department are stationed at different camps or posts in small garrisons, and speed over a very large extent of country. To concentrate a sufficient number to make a successful resistance, after the Texans had taken the field, was not practicable. Besides, we had no large depot of provisions to move upon, and the means of transportation at the posts were so limited that the troops could have taken with them a supply for only a few days. An attempt to bring them together under these circumstances would have, no doubt, resulted in their being cut up in detail before they could get cut of the country. Under these circumstances, I felt it my duty to comply with the agreement entered into by General Twigs [sic], and remove the troops from the, country as early as possible.
Was Col. Waite a traitor to his country like some allege General Twiggs to have been, or simply a realist?
There were lots of realists in that war. All those guys skulking under the bank at Shiloh were realists. I expect I might have joined them but I wouldn't have expected to be honored for it.
The Treaty of Guadaloupe Hidalgo says the forts within Mexico (i.e., the Mexico as defined by the treaty) that were occupied by US forces should be returned to Mexican control. It doesn't mention forts and presidios located within what the US considered the US, at least not that I spotted anyway.
The treaty does pay Mexico for the westward extension of the US boundary into present day California, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado and Wyoming, but not for what you seem to conclude was Mexican property in the US.
Perhaps the Presidio was covered by the payment to Mexican citizens made by the US under the treaty. Was any claim ever made for the Presidio under the terms of the treaty? Not that I can find in an extensive writeup on the ownership of the Presidio (Source).
The Republic of Texas gave the Presidio la Bahia to the town of Goliad in 1844. The title later passed to the Catholic Church in 1855.
Besides, Spain built the Presidio la Bahia, not Mexico. I haven't looked it up, but did Spain give title to that building to Mexico as a result of the Mexican Revolution?
I noticed that none of the treaties dealt with the ownership of forts located in Mexico not held by the U.S. Do you suppose that ownership of property within their borders was assumed and agreed to by both parties to the treaty? But regardless of who held posession, ownership was agreed to by both sides as indicated by their signature on a treaty. It was not arbitrary and one sided.
free dixie,sw
ANY guerrilla fighter on his own ground can defeat at least 10-12 regular soldiers of a power occupying that ground, according to Noel C. Dandley,LTC/IN/RET, Master Instructor,Tactics Committee, USAMPS, 1968-73.
LTC Dandley's estimate may be far TOO conservative, given that <1,000 Huks tied down naerly a whole division of US soldiers for 5 YEARS, with essentially NO casualties.
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
there were NO civilian police in GB until the founding of Scotland Yard.
what civil police functions, as were enforced prior to that date,were by "King's men",i.e. SOLDIERS.
my source for this is the training manual for the VASP, 1999 edition.
the Commonwealth of VA swore in her first Conservator of the Peace in 1777.
that person MAY have been the first CIVILIAN police officer with statewide jurisdiction in North America (PA claims that distinction too.), since Canada had no civilan police either, at that early date.
free dixie,sw
may i suggest that you look it up, should you not. using a "parenthetical remark" is NOT changing the subject.
free dixie,sw
LTC Dandley's estimate may be far TOO conservative
Then God help our troops in Iraq.
Which says nothing to show your contention that the term "cop" was derived from Conservator of the Peace. It may have been but you have not shown it and my guess is equally possible.
in the 19th century, spelling of names was NOT as fixed as they are today. the UDC's marker at Harper's Ferry spells his name "Heywood Shepard" on a bronze erected in 1890 & as "Hayward Shepard" on a NPS plaque at the visitor's center.
as for him being a Conservator of Peace of the Commonwealth of VA, that too is FACT.
once again (as you do almost every time you post) you show yourself to be a believer/poster of DRIVEL & IGNORANCE.
yes, i've heard the same MISinformation about the term "cop", but VA or PA seems to be the CORRECT story.
free dixie,sw
Do you know what the term "supercilious, pompous ass" means?
as usual, you, as the Minister of Damnyankee Propaganda, are posting RUBBISH.
free dixie,sw
once again you're WRONG.
free dixie,sw
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.