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
When comparing the noble Jefferson Davis to the Brigade Commander, it is good to see you maintaining a reverent silence.
Then why didn't the Founders make that distinction and call Great Britain a "nation-state"?
Great Britain is singular in the DOI and the "united States" is plural throughout the document. If this "Union" of yours existed at that point in time, then why wasn't the united States an "it' rather than a "they"?
If the Union existed before the states, then why did it need the Articles of Confederation?
Why did the November 17, 1777, letter to the states asking that they ratify the Articles of Confederation say that the Articles:
...be candidly reviewed under a sense of the difficulty of combining in one general system the various sentiments and interests of a continent divided into so many sovereign and independent communities, under a conviction of the absolute necessity of uniting all our councils and all our strength, to maintain and defend our common liberties ...
What? They weren't already united in this mystical "Union" of yours?
Why did Benjamin Franklin talk of the Union to be formed if the Articles were ratified?
These Articles shall be propos'd to the several Provincial Conventions or Assemblies, to be by them consider'd, and if approv'd they are advis'd to impower their Delegates to agree to and ratify the same in the ensuing Congress. After which the Union thereby establish'd is to continue firm till the Terms of Reconciliation proposed in the Petition of the last Congress to the King are agreed to; till the Acts since made restraining the American Commerce and Fisheries are repeal'd; till Reparation is made for the Injury done to Boston by shutting up its Port; for the Burning of Charlestown; and for the Expence of this unjust War; and till all the British Troops are withdrawn from America.
The Union preceded the States? Capitan of Ockham must be shaving with an electric razor not invented until after the WBTS.
The 50 states of the Union are subordinate entities.
That may have become the de facto situation after the WBTS as a result of might makes right. Not so before.
From Robert Catlett Cave (1911):
The war changed conditions. It established new relations and obligations. It nationalized states that were previously federalized. It changed the union of independent States, held together by mutual consent, into a union of dependent States, held together by national authority. It abolished State sovereignty, and changed the federal government, which derived its powers from the States, into the national government, which exercises authority and power over the States.
Since when has a cheap shot artist like you ever worried about the "merits" of an argument?
Nope, you still have it bass ackwards.
Great Britain is one part of the United Kingdom, long title United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The United States is part of America. North America is a continent. A continent is a very, very, very big land mass. The USA is not the only country which is part of America.
The union under the AoC and the union under the Constitution were two different unions.
Hey doofus, why don't you look up "annoint" in the dictionary?
POX: Genius, Madness, and the Mysteries of Syphilis
ISBN 0-465-02881-0
By Deborah Hayden
Abraham Lincoln
Excerpt from Lincoln chapter:
According to Lincoln’s biographer, friend, and law partner for eighteen years, William Herndon, Lincoln told him that he had been infected with syphilis in Beardstown in 1835 or 1836. Herndon wrote to his co-author “Friend Weik” in January 1891, wishing that he had not put the confidence in writing:
When I was in Greencastle in 1887 I said to you that Lincoln had, when a mere boy, the syphilis, and now let me explain the matter in full, which I have never done before. About the year 1835-36 Mr. Lincoln went to Beardstown and during a devilish passion had connection with a girl and caught the disease. Lincoln told me this and in a moment of folly I made a note of it in my mind and afterwards I transferred it, as it were, to a little memorandum book which I loaned to Lamon, not, as I should have done, erasing that note. About the year 1836-37 Lincoln moved to Springfield and took up quarters with [Joshua] Speed; they became very intimate. At this time I suppose that the disease hung to him and, not wishing to trust our physicians, wrote a note to Doctor Drake, the latter part of which he would not let Speed see, not wishing Speed to know it. Speed said to me that Lincoln would not let him see a part of the note. Speed wrote to me a letter saying that he supposed L’s letter to Doctor Drake had reference to his, L’s crazy spell about the Ann Rutledge love affair, etc., and her death. You will find Speeds’ letter to me in our Life of Lincoln. The note to Doctor Drake in part had reference to his disease and not to his crazy spell as Speed supposes. The note spoken of in the memorandum book was a loose affair, and I never intended that the world should see or hear of it. I now wish and for years have wished that the note was blotted out or burned to ashes. I write this to you, fearing that at some future time the note-a loose thing as to date, place, and circumstances-will come to light and be misunderstood. Lincoln was a man of terribly strong passion, but was true as steel to his wife during his whole marriage life, as Judge Davis has said, saved many a woman, and it most emphatically true, as I know. I write this to you to explain the whole matter for the future if it should become necessary to do so. I deeply regret my part of the affair in every particular.
In a postscript, he adds that a Mrs. Dale saw the book and took note of its contents, and so he fears that the contents may come to light from that source.
Herndon tells us that Lincoln moved in with Speed in 1836-37 and, to repeat from the letter, “at this time I suppose that the disease hung to him [italics added] and, not wishing to trust our physicians, [he] wrote a note to Doctor Drake.” But there is an odd discrepancy in the Speed letter to Herndon published in the Life of Lincoln (completed in 1888-the year before the letter to Weik cited above) and dated 30 November 1866. Here Speed puts the date of the letter to Drake several years later:
Lincoln wrote a letter -- a long one which he read to me-to Dr. Drake of Cincinnati, descriptive of his case. Its date would be in December 1840, or early in January 1841. I think that he must have informed Dr. Drake of his early love Miss Rutledge, as there was a part of the letter which he would not read . . . I remember Dr. Drake’s reply, which was, that he would not undertake to prescribe for him without a personal interview. Here Speed tells Herndon that Lincoln would not let him read part of the letter and guesses that he must have informed Drake of his early love for Ann Rutledge. He remembers Dr. Drake’s reply, that he could not prescribe medication without a personal interview.
The first reference to a contact with Dr. Drake in 1836-37 would have been within one or two years of the initial infection in Beardstown, thus in the highly infectious stage. The second reference, December 1840-January 1841, would have been four to five years after Beardstown, or well into the middle stage of disease. Hirschhorn, Feldman, and Greaves assign the Drake contact to the later date.
Mary Todd Lincoln
Excerpt from Lincoln chapter:
Syphilis was suggested in Mary Todd’s medical history when Norbert Hirschhorn and Robert Feldman published an article in 1999 reviewing the work of the four doctors who had diagnosed her progressive spinal trouble. Finding a clear case of tabes dorsalis, Hirschhorn and Feldman argue convincingly that the doctors would have known very well by then that tabes was caused by syphilis in the majority of cases and would have opted to save her reputation (and to assure a benefit that might have been withheld by a censorious Congress) by stating that her tabes dorsalis was caused by an injury to her spine when she fell from the French chair. “Given the widespread medical knowledge about tabes dorsalis at the close of 1881 and what then was considered its most likely cause [syphilis], it was inevitable that the four physicians chose the least pejorative diagnosis, however marginally acceptable it was to progressive medical opinion.” Jonathan Hutchinson concluded that it was generally accepted that tabes occurs “almost solely” in those who have previously suffered from syphilis. P.J. Möbius went one step further: “The longer I reflect upon it, the more firmly I believe that tabes never originates without syphilis.”
The tabes diagnosis gives a fresh interpretation to the reasons for Mary Todd’s incarceration: “Symptoms imputed to insanity at her trial clearly had their origin in the organic disease of tabes dorsalis.” The authors point out that the lightning pains of tabes were often described with vivid images appropriate to such extreme agony, such as having wires taken out of the eyes or, as Mary also complained, of being hacked to pieces by knives, or of having a sharp, burning agony in the back, or feeling as if one were on fire.
Deborah Hayden
February 21, 2004February 21, 2004 Abraham Lincoln & Syphilis--idea for an article The source that Abraham Lincoln had been infected with syphilis is none other than Lincoln himself, according to his biographer, friend, and law partner, William Herndon. In a letter to his co-author, Herndon wrote: "When I was in Greencastle in 1887, I said to you that Lincoln had, when a mere boy, the syphilis, and now let me explain the matter in full, which I have never done before. About the year 1835-36, Mr. Lincoln went to Beardstown and during a devilish passion had connection with a girl and caught the disease. Lincoln told me this and in a moment of folly I made note of it in my mind and afterwards I transferred it, as it were, to a little memorandum book which I loaned to Lamon, not, as I should have done, erasing that note. About the year 1836-37 Lincoln moved to Springfield and took up quarter with [Joshua] Speed; they became very intimate. At this time I suppose that the disease hung to him, and not wanting to trust our physicians, wrote a note to Doctor Drake."
In my chapter on Lincoln, I made the point that there is quite a bit of circumstantial evidence that Lincoln did have syphilis, and that he was probably taking the "little blue mercury pills" not for melancholia as has been suggested, but for on-going syphilis.
What is remarkable about this whole story is how it has been almost completely ignored in the vast Lincoln scholarship. The question of whether or not Lincoln had syphilis, and how good the clinical evidence of that is, demands further research. But there is a more interesting question. What if Lincoln believed that he had syphilis? And why have there been so many biographies of Lincoln that don't even mention Herndon's letter, let alone ponder the implications?
Gore Vidal is about the only one who brought the whole thing into the open, when he said on the Larry King television program, that both Abraham and Mary Lincoln were infected with syphilis. But he didn't do his homework to pull together a convincing story -- and he didn't have Norbert Hirschhorn's two articles -- the one showing that the "blue mass" that Lincoln took was mercury, or the one showing that Mary Todd's four doctors in 1882 almost assuredly believed that she was suffering from tertiary syphilis in the form of tabes dorsalis. (I make the point in my chapter that Mary Todd's mental imbalance points toward a diagnosis of taboparesis-- that is, both tabes and paresis, but that is another story.
Douglas L. Wilson (co-director of the Lincoln Studies Center at Knox College, in Galesburg, Illinois) mentions the Herndon-Greencastle passage in an article in the Atlantic, but he leaves it without comment, although he does deal with it in a bit more detail in Honor's Voice, his 1998 biography of Lincoln.
So -- this question is posed to the Lincoln scholars: what difference does it make to our view of Lincoln and his place in history if he was, as he said to Herndon, another secret syphilitic?
I'm tempted to write to a handful of Lincoln scholars and ask them this question.
Gore Vidal
Devotees of the Mount Rushmore school of history like to think that the truely great man is a virgin until his wedding night; and a devoted monogamist thereafter. Apparently, Lincoln was indeed "true as steel" to Mary Todd even though, according to Herndon, "I have seen women make advances and I have seen Lincoln reject or refuse them. Lincoln had terrible strong passions for women, could scarcely keep his hands off them, and yet he had honor and strong will, and these enabled him to put out the fires of his terrible passion." But in his youth he was seriously burned by those fires. In the pre-penicillin era syphilis was epidemic - and, usually, incurable. According to Herndon: "About the year 1835-36 Mr. Lincoln went to Beardstown and during a devilish passion had connection with a girl and caught the disease. Lincoln told me this . . " Later, after a long seige, Lincoln was cured, if he was cured, by a Dr. Daniel Drake of Cincinnati.
Herndon suspected that Lincoln might have given Mary Todd syphilis. If he had, that would have explained the premature deaths of three Lincoln children: "Poor boys, they are dead now and gone! I should like to know one thing that this is: What caused the death of these children? I have an opinion which I shall never state to anyone." So stated to everyone Herndon. The autopsy on Mary Todd showed a physical deterioration of the brain consistent with paresis. If Lincoln had given his wife syphilis and if he had, inadvertently, caused the death of his children, the fits of melancholy are now understandable - and unbearably tragic.
Gore Vidal
As for Lincoln's syphilis, I use the words Herndon himself used: "About the year 1835-36 Mr. Lincoln went to Beardstown and during a devilish passion had connection with a girl and caught the disease [syphilis]. Lincoln told me this . . . About the year 1836-37 Lincoln moved to Springfield . . At this time I suppose that the disease hung to him and, not wishing to trust our physicians, he wrote to Doctor Drake." Since there is no reason for Herndon to lie about this, I suppose we should all agree upon it as a fact. But since no saint has ever had syphilis, Herndon is a liar and so the consensus finds against him.
When comparing John Wilkes Booth to the Brigade Commander, it is good to see you maintain a reverent silence.
Because that's what you are for.
I have no need to worry about anything to do with any argument when the opposition can't tell the difference between a petition and a Supreme Court decision, can't tell the difference between the Opinion of the Court and a dissenting opinion, and can't tell the difference between comment by an attorney and the Opinion of the Court.
The only thing to worry about is that you might get so lost you can't find your way back to semi-reality.
What Lincoln said and did is a matter of history. There is no need, or even a desire, to "cover up" anything.
"Please support your argument with a citation from the Constitution abridging the power of the States to convene the People to deliberate the future of the Union."
Within the Constitutional Union, the power to deliberate the future rests with the representatives of the people, in Congress, and within the government. Just as no individual can unilaterally exempt himself from the laws of the land, neither can a community of people, or a state unilaterally exempt themselves. The Constitution was designed to give the government a coersive force, albeit limited.
"The Constitution was written to wreck the lives of guys like you."
Only those who contest the Constitutional Union suffer the consequences. CSA (1861-1865) - rot in hell. The Constitution is why there will never be an "Azatlan" or a second "Southron" republic.
"Can you spell ultra vires? Does the phrase have any meaning for you?"
Yes, It describes the act of unilateral secession perfectly.
(El Capitan) "Since I am not singing "praises" of Carl Sandburg, it seems you are flailing at windmills."
...which begs the question: exactly what were you responding to?
I simply note that Masters was a lesser light
I disagree and have already informed you why I believe him to be the superior poet of the two.
and a loathsome person
And exactly what is loathsome about him? Oh, right. He committed "heresy" against your fake god Saint Abe.
...and that, boys and girls, is a classic example of the logical absurdity that comes to consume an opinion when that opinion is derived not from reason but rather a need to justify and purify, at all costs, the less-than-saintly actions of an illegitimately worshipped idol.
Well...if you insist. I assume that you would want to keep your Lincoln-Herndon fantasies all to yourself.
I confess that I very seldom read any of Nolu-Chan's posts. Life's too short to wade through dreck like that.
If that's what you prefer to believe then go right ahead. Why should you start caring about being right now?
The first broadside copies of the declaration were printed that evening and did not have the word "unanimous" across the top like the more famous copy. It only became unanimous several days later when New York gave its support. Thus for a period of about a week or so, New York had not consented to independence yet making any "union" that existed at the time split on the issue of breaking away from Britain.
Lincoln obviously procreated with women as he produced several offspring. That does not preclude him from another relationship with Speed though.
"Nation-state is a relatively new term designed to avoid the confusion with the various definitions of the imprecise terms "state," "country," and "nation."
"Great Britain is singular in the DOI and the "united States" is plural throughout the document. If this "Union" of yours existed at that point in time, then why wasn't the united States an "it' rather than a "they"?"
I don't think a discussion of 18th century grammar would be worthwhile. In the Declaration, the term "Great Britain" is only used twice; once, in reference to the island, and in the last paragraph, imprecisely in reference to the country.
Possibly a more telling exhibition of 18th century grammar is found in the Preamble to the Constitution, where "We the People" is written in reference to all of the people of the nation, rather than "We the Peoples," in reference to the people of the several states.
"If the Union existed before the states, then why did it need the Articles of Confederation?"
The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union did not create the Union - it already existed. The Articles provided a framework for the operation of confedral government.
"What? They weren't already united in this mystical "Union" of yours?"
The quotation you provided speaks to the dangers of disunion. If the Union did not exist in 1777, as you mistakenly claim, how do you explain this provision in the draft Articles, authored by Dickinson, and offered to the Congress just days after the Declaration in 1776:
"Article II The said Colonies unite themselves so as never to be divided by any Act whatever ..." Even then, the Founders did not anticipate an ephemeral Union, such as the Calhounians would later suggest.
"The Union preceded the States? Capitan of Ockham must be shaving with an electric razor not invented until after the WBTS."
You quote from Franklin's early proposed version of articles of Confederation, drafted in 1775. Apparently the great statesman recognized the inevitability of a greater Union even then.
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.