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
Even a short biography will provide you with some insight.
"I disagree and have already informed you why I believe him to be the superior poet of the two.
And next you will provide a discourse on why you consider ABBA to be artistically superior to Tony Orlando & Dawn. I don't think anyone cares about Masters' poetry (or Sandburg's for that matter).
Tsk tsk. The New York delegation had been instructed not to vote on an independence declaration. The Colonial legislature provided its approval a few short days later.
Also you error in your understanding of the term "unanimous." New York did not vote against independence. Nor did any other delegation. Therefore, the vote was unanimous. With the New York leglislature's approval, it became the unanimous declaration of all 13 colonies. In the meantime, the New York delegates continued to participate in the Continental Congress (drafting the Articles of Confederation) and New Yorker's in the war of independence. New York was very much a part of the Union - an important part - prior to and after the Declaration. Your argument is silly.
Taking the example provided, I can see that you affirmed exactly what I stated: the fact that he committed "heresy" against your fake god Saint Abe.
And next you will provide a discourse on why you consider ABBA to be artistically superior to Tony Orlando & Dawn.
Revealing your musical preferences, eh capitan?
I don't think anyone cares about Masters' poetry (or Sandburg's for that matter).
You evidently did a few posts back when you were identifying Sandburg's as the better of the two.
Meaning for about a week after July 4th, independence had been declared yet it was not unanimously adhered to by all members of the "union" you describe.
New York did not vote against independence. Nor did any other delegation. Therefore, the vote was unanimous.
Then why did they obtain a separate motion on July 19th to change the title from "A Declaration by the Representatives of the United States of America in General Congress assembled" to "The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America"?
With the New York leglislature's approval, it became the unanimous declaration of all 13 colonies.
Which, as I noted, means that it had not been a unanimous declaration of all 13 colonies prior to then. That would make it the declaration agreed to by 12 colonies but not the final 13th colony, which still waited for direction.
Sounds better, don't you think?
"Which, as I noted, means that it had not been a unanimous declaration of all 13 colonies prior to then."
Wrong. You said that the July resolution was "was not unanimously agreed to." I know now what you meant, but it is not what you said.
"That would make it the declaration agreed to by 12 colonies but not the final 13th colony, which still waited for direction."
Given that it was several weeks before the engrossed copy of the Declaration was ordered and ready for signatures, your point is historically trivial. The July 2 resolution was unanimous. The July 4 Dunlap broadsides were widely distributed. New York chimed in by the 15th of July. The engrossed copy was ordered on the 19th.
Only in the cockeyed confederate point of view. The Union remained. The government changed.
Good one.
Indeed it does, which is why they changed it as soon as they could honestly say it.
Wrong. You said that the July resolution was "was not unanimously agreed to."
Did they identify it as a unanimously agreed resolution at any time prior to New York's decision? If they did, show it.
Given that it was several weeks before the engrossed copy of the Declaration was ordered and ready for signatures, your point is historically trivial.
The only reason you call it trivial is the fact that you don't like its implications. It is hardly a trivial matter though considering that the July 4th Dunlap Broadside, and not the more famous formal presentation copy from a month later, is the one they sent to King George (two copies of it still exist in the holdings of the British government). Nor is the famous presentaiton copy the one that was officially entered into the record. The official one was signed by John Hancock and the secretary on the 4th and carried over to Dunlap's print show that evening for distribution. It was replaced in the record with a Dunlap copy that then became the engrossed one and resides to this day in the national archives.
You really aren't very smart, are you?
Great Britain: 1 island W Europe comprising England, Scotland, & Wales area 88,150 square miles (228,300 square kilometers), population 53,917,000" (Merriam Webster Dictionary Online).
America: 1a. The United States b. the land mass occupied by the United States 2. North, South, and Central America: a landmass comprising North America, South America, and Central America
My comparison was correct: geographic entity to political entity.
If his post scrolls beyond the end of a page, it is likely another hairball he has coughed up, and I rarely read them either.
I don't recall suggesting one was "better" than the other, but rather, one was critically acclaimed relative to the other.
"And next you will provide a discourse on why you consider ABBA to be artistically superior to Tony Orlando & Dawn."
Just pointing out the inane nature of your comments thus far.
It seems to me that the engrossed copy was meant for domestic consumption, especially for domestic Troy consumption. I am sure you can understand the propaganda value.
(El Capitan) You really aren't very smart, are you? Great Britain: 1 island W Europe comprising England, Scotland, & Wales area 88,150 square miles (228,300 square kilometers), population 53,917,000" (Merriam Webster Dictionary Online).
No, capitan. NC was correct.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/uk.html
Government United Kingdom Top of Page Country name: conventional long form: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
conventional short form: United Kingdom
abbreviation: UK
Government type: constitutional monarchy
Capital: London
I'd ask how your foot tastes right now, but you're too dishonest to give an answer and would probably equate it to something pleasant.
And "critically acclaimed relative to the other" is another way of saying "better than."
It does not matter what you believe its propaganda value was. The fact remains that the officially adopted copy of the declaration that passed on July 4th was not a unanimous holding of all 13 colonies, New York having waited for another week.
So is this your weak attempt at suggesting the Declaration is of less importance or value because the title was changed after two weeks? That it is of less value because it was sent from the Continental Congress to George?
"Did they identify it as a unanimously agreed resolution at any time prior to New York's decision? If they did, show it."
Do a google search on the Stan Klos website and look for the Declaration of Independence page. I recall there is a image which shows the text of the Lee resolution for Independence (July 2), with the clerk's tally of the votes [all "A" (aye), no "N" (nay)]. That is a unanimous vote on the resolution under the rules of the Continental Congress. An abstention is not a "no" vote.
Not at all, though it does show that the declaration occurred and changed upon the individual actions of the separate states, not some unstated and unsupported legal concept of "the Union" that supposedly predates it.
Do a google search on the Stan Klos website and look for the Declaration of Independence page. I recall there is a image which shows the text of the Lee resolution for Independence (July 2), with the clerk's tally of the votes [all "A" (aye), no "N" (nay)].
That was the Lee resolution though, which incidentally Lee himself later described as an act of 13 separate states. The subject of our discussion is the Declaration itself. I'll ask you again. Prior to New York's decision to join the Declaration do you know of any version of that document that states itself to have been unanimous?
Oh, and feel free to link to whatever sites you are referencing.
And for Lee's statements see his Federal Farmer letters in which he repeatedly refers to the government created under the DoI as one of "thirteen republics."
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.