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
Two different organizations. You seem to be referencing this article by James Zwick . Since he also wrote the article that connected Masters with the communist-supported organization I don't think that he would make a mistake and place Masters in the wrong one. Try here .
...which would indicate only that he consistently participated in anti-imperialist movements from roughly 1897 through the 1930's. You are still unable, however, to produce evidence that he ever held any communist political beliefs or was ever directly affiliated with the communist party like James McPherson is. In fact, the very same year your source dates for Masters' involvement in the second group, 1928, is the year that Eugene V. Debs' lieutenants were writing him and telling him that the communists no longer had control of the anti-imperialist league!
McPherson is affiliated with the Communist party?
http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/may1999/mc1-m19.shtml
Positively seditious.
In the whatever happened to category:
Canby commanded Federal troops in New York City during the 1863 draft riots. Later, he was killed by Indians during peace talks with them.
Col Chivington, Federal hero of Glorieta, attacked a sleeping peaceful Cheyenne village at Sand Creek after the war and quickly resigned from the army rather than face outrage and punishment over this famous massacre.
Texas troops involved in the New Mexico expedition helped throw Federal invaders out of Galveston in January 1863.
Sibley proved inept in later commands. General Taylor preferred charges against him for disobedience of orders and unofficerlike conduct. He was found not guilty in his court marshal. He then served as a general in an Egyptian army but was dismissed for drunken incompetence.
Sibley's invasion of New Mexico had formidable odds against it. His troops, originally numbering about 3,700, were up against about 12,000 troops under Canby, Carleton, Slough, Leavenworth and Hunter (source: Kerbey's book).
Meaning up river into New Mexico. There is no internal inconsistancy.
Please recall the Steele's rear guard routed at Mesilla (Las Cruces, New Mexico), on the Rio Grande, about 50 miles of Franklin (El Paso, Texas). The stragglers were rounded up all along the Rio Grande corridor.
I am providing you with documentation. You are replying with opinion and supposition. There's nothing wrong with making educated guesses and conclusions based on the best evidence. But please stop whining about the Official Records of the War of the Rebellion. They are a commonly cited source which contain both the available Union and Confederate papers. I am sure there are, somewhere, the rebel version of events.
From the two passages quotes (General order #15 and Kerbey) one thing, at least, seems evident. While under Union control there appears to be some sort of due process. It may well have been of the Roy Bean style, I can't say. General Order #15 provides some insight, by implication, into the confederate administration of the area.
Indeed the good professor is. He also hangs out with the Pacifica radio types and has been on advisory boards to left wing campaigns in the Democrat party.
Let's see. McPherson is interviewed by a members of the leadership committee. Masters was on the leadership committee. McPherson is a commie. Masters isn't. Makes perfect sense...in GOPcapitalistland.
If that is so, then where to the numbers suggesting about 500 POW's come from, and how come only 50 or 100 or whatever it was went to San Antonio, the rest going to Illinois?
They are a commonly cited source which contain both the available Union and Confederate papers.
Indeed they are, but they're also replete with low level officers embellishing their accomplishments on the battlefield. Your account of Sibley appears to be one such embellishment as it presumes substantial amounts of information WRT motives and what the confederates may have been thinking when the fact is that their troops hardly ever even met each other on the battlefield.
Actually you make no sense whatsoever as your analogy is contrived.
McPherson was interviewed and published by members of a _communist political party's_ leadership committee over a decades span between the early 1990's and the present.
Masters joined a separate political organization in 1928 of formerly communist origins but of which by their own admission the communists no longer controlled at that date.
McPherson's group was a communist party itself. Masters' group was not. McPherson's group was under full communist control when he affiliated with them. Masters' group was not. McPherson's career-long political bent has been toward shared positions with the radical left. Masters' was not.
I gather the Confederate army had to live off the land at times in New Mexico. The local Mexican farmers naturally didn't like it and refused to take Confederate paper in exchange.
The O.R. account documents a group of approximately 25 sick and wounded taken as pow's when the federal vanguard entered El Paso. They were escorted to San Antonio, on parole, within a week to ten days. Another group gathered of about 100 at Fort Bliss, El Paso, and were similarly sent east on parole two weeks later (this group was given arms for their own protection from "Mexicans and Indians"). There were others taken prisoner throughout the theater of operations, from present-day Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and from western Texas. This may even include pow's taken in the panhandle area of Texas and the Indian Territory, and Kansas (the records in the "Pacific" chapters of the O.R. only mention these areas in passing, as they were not part of the Department of the Pacific or the Department of New Mexico).
Account suggest that of Sibley's and Hunter's combined forces in New Mexico Territory, about 500 died from combat or illness, and about 500 were taken captive and sent to Illinois. The rest retreated to San Antonio, or were paroled there. It is also possible some deserted to Mexico.
Your account of Sibley appears to be one such embellishment as it presumes substantial amounts of information ...
My account is based on my reading of the O.R. and Hunt's book on the Army of the Pacific. It has been supplemented by recent web searches, and of course, the documentation provided by rustbucket and others. It actually has been an interesting exercise, because so little is published about the War in the Southwest.
I had never heard of the skirmish at Grinnell's Ranch, Arizona. Apparently it is the farthest west action in the WBTS, taking place between Carleton's California scouts and Hunter's Texans. This was followed shortly thereafter by the Battle of Pacacho Pass, near Tucson.
http://wtj.com/articles/picacho/
I am sure you have better resources concerning the confederate documentation of the actions in the west. You are welcome to post them.
Bizarre. But then again, many of your posts are.
Instead of quibbling over what encyclopedia.com says about Edgar Lee Masters, why don't you attempt to rebut his work? You have posted openly partisan Lincolnite sources such as Jaffa around here and, while I made due note of their biases, I also took the time to rebut their arguments. The very least you can do is afford Masters the same.
Battle of Picacbo Pass, Arizona, April 15, 1862. Union 12 men; Confederates, 9 men. Map shows it a good bit west of Tucson near the Pima villages. (Must be the Pacacho Pass you mentioned.)
Skirmish 80 miles East of Fort Yuma, California (they were coming for you, capitan). April 2-3, 1862. Union 272 men; Confederates 15-20 men. (Maybe this is your Grinnell's Ranch.)
The Affair at Tucson, Arizona, March (12?), 1862. Union, 9 men; Confederates, 30 men.
LOL!! They were already here! Albert Sidney Johnston and Lewis Armistead not the least of which.
California was in some ways a "border state" with regard to loyalties in the WBTS. However, the southern loyalties lay primarily in southern California, which was sparsely populated. I recently came across stories about the "Los Angeles Mounted Rifles" - a pro-southern militia group which offered to escort Johnston east after he resigned his commission.
In an interesting twist, a local (to Los Angeles) Maryland-born Judge by the name of Dryden, was active in pro-southern politics and the organization of the LAMR. I knew of him because he had financed one of the first "oil wells" in Los Angeles in the 1850's. It was not much more than a deep, hand dug pit into a natural seepage of oil. They apparently dipped the heavy oil that slowly flowed into the well, from time to time, and distilled it for the lighter fractions.
You are correct. It is 'Picacho'. I looked at my source again more carefully (Kerby). They use an odd italics font where the h's look like b's. The bottom right part of the 'h' curls back until it touches the lower left side almost at the bottom. There were no lower case b's that I could compare, but there were some h's in words like 'Fourth". Looked like 'Fortb'.
I feel like I'm Dan Rather and have been outed by a font.
To confuse things further, there was also a battle at Picacho, New Mexico, aka Cook's Canyon.
The Confederate units involved in the three Arizona actions I cited were the Arizona Volunteers, in one case under Sherod Hunter and in another under Jack Swilling. The Arizona Volunteers were formed in New Mexico, I think, not Texas. The Sherod Hunter SCV site is here: http://members.tripod.com/~azrebel/page6.html
I had one and possibly a second ancestor in Texas regiments known as the Arizona Brigade. These were Texas regiments formed in 1862-1863 after the return of troops from Sibley's New Mexico campaign. The information on the Sherod Hunter SCV site is not all that accurate about some of these Texas units, at least not what I've been able to find about them in the old newspapers. I've sent notes to the Sherod Hunter camp about it but have never gotten a reply.
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.