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
Just a question...:)
Surely you don't agree with the infamous WLAT aka Whiskey Papa, aka: Confederate hating sc*mbag's quote? :)
(On your homepage)
And why should I ask them to remove it? It stands there as a testament to the dangerous beliefs espoused by a truly evil person. The moment that we pretend that true evil does not exist and go about expunging it from public view on the basis that one person, to wit yourself, takes offense and/or embarrassment at the fact that an evil man's beliefs about the union are virtually identical to his own, is the same moment that we allow that evil to triumph. I quoted Hitler and I quoted Marx for the very reason that they were evil men who espoused evil beliefs that some people, of late, have become a bit to friendly with in their repetitions of the same. Your buddy #3 just got the boot for being a neo-nazi. That you come along not two weeks later and start espousing a political philosophy that, as both LG and myself have show, is identical to Hitler's is accordingly both disturbing and in need of being pointed out.
Uhhhh....
That's a double Hell NO!
Over
But he was entertaining from time to time, wan't he?
Exactly. Keeping a record of what evil persons do and say is the strongest means of preventing their evil from emerging again.
Methinks our friend capitan is not so much offended by the fact Hitler was quoted as he claims but rather by the fact that Hitler's espoused views on the subject are so identical to his own that the two could be quoted interchangably without notice much as could be done with Wlat and Marx. He knows his buddy #3 was exposed as a flaming bigot and now he's afraid that his own leftism is showing through.
Gianni's First Law.
Your argument is also morally bankrupt, but that is another issue.
Yes he was...:) especially when he went double ballistic....GOP Capitalist used to make him squeal! (no pun intended toward a certain stereotyped insulting movie!:)
To serve as a demonstration and warning against an evil concept and ideology, indeed I do. You simply don't like it because you agree with the statement of Hitler that I quoted.
Reelected or not, he was still a congressman and he was arrested for simply voicing opposition political beliefs. Lincoln didn't like dissent be it from congressmen or judges so he suppressed it.
The second meeting of the Missouri convention had a quorum of the members who attended the first session.
Source?
The renegade legislature
They were the only legislature duly elected under the constitution of Missouri. The renegades were the self-appointed military regime back in Jefferson City.
would not meet in Neosho until October, and, even if they could claim legitimacy, never achieve quorum (at least, no official records exist to show that was the case
Wrong. One of the house's journals has been found and shows a quorum. The other is missing but little reason exists to doubt it as all the newspapers reported they had a quorum and gave the vote totals.
If your ... uhhhh ... "reasoning" were valid, then it could be concluded that Federal judges don't have to pay income taxes, or tax increases, because it would decrease their "compensation."
Wrong. The 16th amendment gives Congress the power to collect taxes upon income, thus superseding any inhibition upon it from doing so. That amendment did not exist in 1861.
Taney had prepared several opinions during the war dealing with issues ranging from the legality of income tax to conscription.
And I ask you again, do you believe there is something wrong with a judge writing about legal topics? His challenge to the legality of the income tax, BTW, was perfectly valid and sustained when they tried to pass one again in the late 1800's. That's why it took a constitutional amendment to establish the one today.
Still, no substantiation on your part.
Now you're simply being slothful. Nobody disputes that he raised the army, nobody disputes that he brought it to DC, and nobody disputes that he brought it there BEFORE Virginia seceded.
They were to be stationed and utilized all over the Union, not just in Washington, D.C. or Virginia.
Yet for some reason thousands upon thousands of them were carted into Washington.
On April 17, the Virginia legislature passed a secession ordinance, subject to a popular referendum.
Yet Virginia did not secede for another month.
On April 18, Virginia militia under the direction of secessionist former Virginia Governor Wise unlawfully seized the arsenal at Harper's Ferry.
Yet Virginia did not secede for another month. The claim upon arsenals, BTW, was a highly disputed legal matter at the time and even southern unionists wanted the ones in their states placed in state hands - in part to keep them from being either used against the state OR seized by a secessionist mob - until secession had been legally decided. Sam Houston was among those who adhered to this position as he urged state authorities to take control of federal installations in Texas even though he opposed secession.
These, and similar acts all preceded the May 23rd referendum.
Yet Virginia still had not seceded. There's a giant mob of left wing wackos walking through the streets of New York City right now. They've stolen and vandalized all sorts of stuff, but is that a reasonable basis to call in the army and send them in to invade and conquer the state of New York?
Please do elaborate on this claim. While you're at it perhaps you can also answer me this: do you or do you not agree with the Hitler quote's take on the union?
Bump. Lincoln good, name redacted bad. Lincoln's armies slaughtering, raping and starving innocent Southern women and children is good, name redacted's armies slaughtering, raping and starving innocent Jewish women and children is bad. Lincoln starving Southerners is good, name redacted starving Jews is bad.
It's seems they want glorify Lincoln almost to point of worship, yet pretend name redacted and his evil never existed. Strange.
Still don't mean we have to like him.
Sorry if it came across that way, he was far from being a name redacted, but to me he's still ultimately responsible for a lot of needless deaths. I just can't understand the double standard employed by many of his admirers.
The arrest was Burnsides idea and history records that Lincoln was chagrined about the development. Vallandigham was a former congressman at the time.
"Wrong. One of the house's journals has been found and shows a quorum. The other is missing but little reason exists to doubt it as all the newspapers reported they had a quorum and gave the vote totals."
Newspaper accounts to do not constitute "official records." An official record would show who was present and how they voted. There is no telling who attended ex-Gov. Jackson's road show. Nor is there a record that Jackson properly noticed the special session, even if he were still entitled to act.
"Wrong. The 16th amendment gives Congress the power to collect taxes upon income, thus superseding any inhibition upon it from doing so. That amendment did not exist in 1861."
Correct, a later Court case invalidated the income tax (in 1895, because it was not apportioned among the states in conformity with the Constitution). The reason you originally cited (diminished compensation for federal judges) borders on the ridiculous.
"And I ask you again, do you believe there is something wrong with a judge writing about legal topics?"
Nothing at all wrong with writing; however, to prepare opinions prior to hearing a case suggests the political motivation of someone uninterested in hearing arguments.
"Now you're simply being slothful. Nobody disputes that he raised the army, nobody disputes that he brought it to DC, and nobody disputes that he brought it there BEFORE Virginia seceded."
No, you are simply in denial. Virginia was involved in rebellion prior to any new federal troops arriving in Washington, D.C. (the first of the units being the 6th Massachusetts, which arrived on April 19-20). The "ratification" of the Legislatures act of secession took place on May 23, but the die was cast on April 17.
"Yet for some reason thousands upon thousands of them were carted into Washington."
By July, McDowell was able to muster about 30,000 men for the first battle at Bull Run. Fremont, in Missouri, had about 40,000 by July. McClellan and others had about 20,000 men for operations in loyal western Virgina. I would say more of the 75,000 90-day enlistees went somewhere else.
If, as you say, Virgina was still part of the Union in late April and May (although the government of the State in no way acted like it was), then Lincoln had every right to post soldiers or sailors there in its defense, and that of the federal District of Columbia, or to mount offensives against the disloyal.
"The claim upon arsenals, BTW, was a highly disputed legal matter at the time and even southern unionists wanted the ones in their states placed in state hands."
It was a highly disputed political issue. There was no legal issue - they were federal armories and arsenals an their seizure by secessionists or state governments was criminal.
"There's a giant mob of left wing wackos walking through the streets of New York City right now. They've stolen and vandalized all sorts of stuff, but is that a reasonable basis to call in the army and send them in to invade and conquer the state of New York?"
You are coming unhinged. I imagine you have a tough time swallowing the "party of Lincoln" and "legacy of Lincoln" tributes.
If the protesters in NYC begin to act violently like they acted in Seattle, and elsewhere, during similar protests, the local authorities should be able to handle it. If they can't handle it, they will no doubt call in the National Guard. Petty theft, vandalism, and lewd conduct is a far cry from seizing naval shipyards and warships, burning bridges, ripping up railroads, and taking arsenals.
If the wackos held a mass meeting in Central Park and declared that NYC was seceding from the Union, you would certainly support them, wouldn't you?
Why don't you explain yourself?
You know the rules:
"NO profanity, NO personal attacks, NO racism or violence in posts."
If you want to smear people with Nazi innuendo, it shows a profound moral bankruptcy, and an inability to rationally discuss any issues.
By quoting Hitler, you invoke his racism and inhumanity as your moral authority. And it is not being done in some scholarly sense; it is being done to smear me and others.
A couple of you claim some level of Christian belief. Hitler, too, claimed he was acting in behalf of the will of God and according to Biblical sanctions. In Mein Kampf he quotes from the Bible hundreds of times. By the exact same analogy used by GOPcapitalist, would it be fair for me to say that because you are Christian who believes the Bible, you are also an adherent to Hitler?
That sort of false logic pollutes Free Republic. I personally don't think "the boss" would appreciate it on his forum.
I am willing to put the question to Jim and see what he thinks. We have at least two of you on record as supporting the posting of Hitler (NC and GOPc). We haven't heard from a couple of others yet. If you support the practice, don't be a coward and just come right out and say so. The Hitler posts are offensive. If GOPc was any sort of a man, he would ask that the mods that they be removed. Since that won't happen, let's see what Jim thinks. I'm still waiting to see if the others want to chime in.
See #375
So, using your illogic, if I were to quote some goofy left wing off the wall statement by John Kerry and then say "hey everybody - look at this goofy off the wall left wing statement John Kerry made!" I would in fact be "invoking" Kerry's goofy off the wall left wingness as my "moral authority"? Strange.
What's even stranger though is this. You, capitan, have yet to answer my question: do you or do you not agree with the view of the union described by Hitler in that quote?
Hitler, too, claimed he was acting in behalf of the will of God and according to Biblical sanctions.
That is historically incorrect. At the very most Hitler invoked biblical claims early in his career and for propaganda purposes. Virtually all scholars who have studied him recognize that his true religious beliefs, if they can be called that, revolved around nordic/aryan occultism.
If GOPc was any sort of a man, he would ask that the mods that they be removed.
I do not ask for its removal because there simply is no credible basis as to why a quote by Hitler used specifically to demonstrate what an evil man Hitler was should be removed. You certainly haven't offered any beyond noting that Hitler was a bad guy, which was my point to begin with.
Of course we all know your real reason for claiming false outrage over seeing (gasp!) a Hitler quote in posts that are using those quotes to CONDEMN Hitler and those who share his beliefs. You want the quote to go away because you know deep down that it agrees with what you've been saying on this thread and you are embarrassed at the fact that you share a very specifically articulated belief with one of the biggest mass murdering socialist thugs of all time.
I posted the quote to clarify your degree of agreement with its evil author. Now, despite my asking repeatedly, you will not so much as even state whether or not you agree with that quote by Hitler. The reason for this is unknown, but I strongly suspect that you are embarrassed by the fact that your own beliefs do indeed match up with Hitler's.
Well his "chagrin" certainly wasn't enough to prompt him to intervene! A captain is master of his ship and responsible for what those under him do.
Newspaper accounts to do not constitute "official records."
Nor did I say that they did. I did however note that one of the two houses does have an official record contrary to your claim (I informed you of it several months ago BTW, thus making your honesty suspect here). As to the other, the journal simply has not been found. That being the case you have absolutely no basis on which to categorically declare the absence of a quorum, especially considering that the papers reported one was present thus making it likely that the other journal would show the same thing.
There is no telling who attended ex-Gov. Jackson's road show.
There is on the Senate side at least. The journal survived and is displayed at the Wilson's Creek National Battlefield. We don't, at the present, know every house member who attended though we do know some based on individual documentation, and we know what the papers reported as a number. For example, we know the speaker of the house was there and several members who mentioned it individually in letters and the sort. Perhaps a journal will turn up one day and settle the matter, but as it stands you have no basis for arbitrarily declaring the absence of a quorum.
Nor is there a record that Jackson properly noticed the special session
The Senate is known to have properly called itself to order and the House clerks, secretaries, etc. are all known to have been there. John C. Moore, one of the first period historians to record the events in Missouri, also specifically contradicts your claim:
In every particular it [the Neosho session] complied with the forms of law. It was called together in extraordinary session by the proclamation of the governor. There was a quorum of each house present. The governor sent to the two houses his message recommending, among other things, the passage of an act "dissolving all political connection between the State of Missouri and the United States of America." The ordinance was passed strictly in accordance with law and parliamentary usage, was signed by the presiding officers of the two houses, attested by John T. Crisp, secretary of the senate, and Thomas M. Murray, clerk of the house, and approved by Claiborne F. Jackson, governor of the State.The reason you originally cited (diminished compensation for federal judges) borders on the ridiculous.
Nonsense. The taxing of income diminished their compensation, pure and simple. That tax was unconstitutional any way for a whole slew of other reasons, but the fact remains that it took the 16th amendment to get around the unconstitutionality problem, part of which was the compensation clause.
Nothing at all wrong with writing; however, to prepare opinions prior to hearing a case suggests the political motivation of someone uninterested in hearing arguments.
What you keep describing as "opinions" were in fact personal letters, research documents, and writings that Taney composed. On another note, for somebody who objects so vehemently to Taney's drafting of articles on legal topics before cases arose, you sure are quick to plaster forums like these with excerpts from Bill Rehnquist's now-invalidated speech at a law school. In short, it seems that you believe judges are only allowed to write up a position when that position agrees with your own.
No, you are simply in denial.
It's no matter of denial. The troops were there a month before Virgina seceded. To suggest otherwise is simply slothful.
By July, McDowell was able to muster about 30,000 men for the first battle at Bull Run. Fremont, in Missouri, had about 40,000 by July. McClellan and others had about 20,000 men for operations in loyal western Virgina. I would say more of the 75,000 90-day enlistees went somewhere else.
Really? Cause it looks to me as if Lincoln sent them around in comparably sized units. It also looks as if he filled Washington JUST as I said he did - with thousands and thousands of troops.
If, as you say, Virgina was still part of the Union in late April and May (although the government of the State in no way acted like it was), then Lincoln had every right to post soldiers or sailors there in its defense
Which, according to the Declaration, is the exact same argument used by King George. Thank you for proving my point for me.
It was a highly disputed political issue. There was no legal issue - they were federal armories and arsenals an their seizure by secessionists or state governments was criminal.
Then I'll ask you again. Was Sam Houston, who told state authorities to arrange the transfer of federal properties to the state of Texas, a criminal?
If the protesters in NYC begin to act violently like they acted in Seattle, and elsewhere, during similar protests, the local authorities should be able to handle it.
Which is what the founders said King George should've done in 1776. But instead he called in the army - he used the military to supplant the civil authority. Thank you for proving another of my points. You're on a roll at dismantling your own argument today!
If the wackos held a mass meeting in Central Park and declared that NYC was seceding from the Union, you would certainly support them, wouldn't you?
In all honesty, I'd say good riddance, wish them well, and gloat in the fact that New York State, absent its largest Democrat voter dumpster, would soon be sending two new Republicans to the U.S. Senate.
"Never Forget"
In 1959 the Israeli Knesset passed another special law creating YOM HASHOAH, Holocaust Remembrance Day, to be observed each year on the 27th day of the month of Nissan, according to the Jewish calendar. This date coincides with the beginning of the heroic revolt against the Nazis by Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto in 1943. It usually occurs in April.
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.