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
I post informational documentation to support my views. It almost always comes from recognized authorities in their field. You don't agree with much of it, and have trouble refuting it. Instead, you make ad hominem attacks.
Your modus operandi is to put an epithet on anything you don't agree with and can't refute. Just look at the post I am replying to. I don't participate in queer-baiting, Hitler-quoting, Marx-quoting, Klan promoting hate content. The only thing I am embarrassed about is occasionally stooping to the same level as you and your neo-reb friends.
Editorial Alert
You do pollute Free Republic. The content and demeanor of many of your ("your all") posts belongs over on DU. This is a conservative forum. "Free Republic is an online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We're working to roll back decades of governmental largess, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America." Conservative doesn't mean "Brownshirt." And it doesn't mean neo-confederate either. FR is for people who, like the founder, believe in and support their country and the principles it stands for, and hope to make it a better place. You reject many of those principles; you pine for a time when states could perpetuate great social evils; when the vision of the founders for human equality meant nothing. The Confederacy was the antithesis of the nation envisioned by Madison, Jefferson, Washington, Hamilton, and ultimately, by Lincoln. True conservatives believe in equal opportunity, not equal outcome. The Confederacy did not believe in equality at all.
The first tenet of the Republican Party (and I have been a proud member of it, and only it, since the mid-1970s) is "I believe the strength of the nation lies with the individual and that each person's dignity, freedom, ability, and responsibility must be honored." That is incompatible with your neo-reb denial of a binding national covenant called the Constitution. The Confederacy did not respect individual dignity and freedom, unless you were rich and white.
Another tenet of the Republican party is that "I believe in equal rights, equal justice, and equal opportunity for all, regardless of race, creed, age, sex, or national origin." In the 1860's, this was not obtainable, but it was a goal that I believe Lincoln would have supported. Again, it is not compatible with Confederate dogma.
And the Republican Party has always stood for the ideal that "the most effective, responsible, and responsive government is government closest to the people." The function of the national government is to guarantee the promises of the Preamble and the vision of the Declaration. The Confederacy was not about "liberty" - it wouldn't allow liberty or the full benefits of citizenship to most of its residents. Lincoln, on the other hand, was determined that "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from this earth."
The liberty that hundreds of millions of people enjoy today is the legacy of Lincoln, because he refused to allow the self-serving southern "leadership" destroy the Union.
Your responses are predictable. Just try and keep them somewhat above their normal vulgar level.
The court held 7-2 that Scott remained a slave. To reverse that result:
What is your opinion of the 1857 case of Lemmon v. The People?
The Agreed Statement of Facts submitted to the Supreme Court established as a fact, not reviewable by the Supreme Court, that it was John Emerson who sold Scott and his family to Sanford. John Emerson died in 1843. How do you explain the Agreed Statement of Facts establishing that Emerson obtained ownership of Dred Scott from a corpse?
The founders maintained and documented oppression by the Crown. The South was unable, at least with a straight face, to make the same claim. Instead, they realized they were falling into the political minority for the first time, and tried to bolt from the national obligations.
You used to be a little faster on the uptake, but now you're just being, "slothful."
"The Senate is known to have properly called itself to order and the House clerks, secretaries, etc. are all known to have been there."
I am sure the Col. Moore, CSA, is an unbiased source for writing the Confederate history of Missouri. I seem to recall the you and your neo-reb buddies had all sorts of problems with the supposed bias of the author of the Union version of events. But I'll be glad to accept Moore's version for what it is; unsourced, unfootnoted, and undocumented.
"The decision in the Taney Court in the Stader case, being simply a refusal to accept jurisdiction, did not impinge significantly upon Dred Scott's cause before the high court of Missouri. Indeed, it was irrelevant unless the Missouri judges decided against him and he attempted an appeal to the United States Supreme Court. Even then, the two cases would be far from parallel. For Scott's claim to freedom rested upon several years of residence on free soil, rather than a brief visit, and residence not only in a free state but in free federal territory ...
"Taney's Stader opinion, if accepted as precedent, would have a controlling effect on the future disposition of any similar cases in the United States Supreme Court. it amounted to a declaration of judicial self-restraint, promising noninterference by the federal judiciary with state court decisions on the subject. This meant, however, that the effect of the opinion on a case being heard in a state court was permissive rather than controlling.... Taney's remarks, even if relevant to Dred Scott's case, indicated neither that Scott was free no that he was still a slave, but only that his condition depended solely on Missouri law." (Pg 260-262)
"The Stader decision had turned on the Court's finding that the Northwest Ordinance was no longer operative in Ohio and that accordingly there was no federal question at issue to justify review of the state court decision. But Dred Scott claimed his freedom by virtue of an operative federal law, and the claim had been denied by the Missouri court. These circumstances plainly qualified his case for appeal under Section 25 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, and Taney's emphatic pronouncement to the contrary was preposterous." (Pg 269)
What I said was, "An accurate quote of Hitler or anyone else is acceptable. What is unacceptable is espousing or praising the doctrine therein, such as was done by the most recently banned brigade member. He was not smeared, he was quoting and espousing neo-nazi doctrine."
Back at #321 4CJ called Hitler a bloviating idiot. Apparently you interpret bloviating idiot to indicate support.
Do you mean "Sanford" rather than Emerson? If so, Ferhenbacher discusses the problem on Pg 247-249 of his book.
In short, the link is that Mrs. John Emerson was formerly Eliza Irene Sanford. One of the Scott daughters is named after her. Mrs. Emerson inherited his late husband's estate in late 1843 and her brother, John F. A. Sanford was the executor. Mr. Sanford had failed to file a final report on the estate when he died in 1848.
Fehrenbacher later notes (pg 270):
"If Dred Scott v Emerson had been reviewed by the United Stees Supreme court, there would have been no Dred Scott v Sandford (sic), which was simply the alternative way of getting the case before that same Supreme Court. The crucial differnece was that the two major issues in the Sandford case - Negro citizenship and the contitutionality of the Missouri compromise restriction - did not appear on the face of the record in the Emerson case and would have been beyond the scope of federal court review. Thus a Supreme court decision in Dred Scott v Emerson would have been narrowly based and comparatively uncontroversial. In that event, unless Taney had been able to find another peg on which to hang his sweeping and inflammatory opinion of 1857, the great consequences attributed to the Dred Scott decision wouold have been unknown to history."
4CJ can speak for himself. You have already spoken for yourself.
First of all, it is Strader, not Stader. And you did not respond regarding The Slave, Grace, or the Lemmon case. You chose not to explain how Sanford purportedly bought Scott from a corpse.
Your first two quotes are from Chapter 10 of Fehrenbacher's book. Look at the chapter title. "Versus Emerson" Try to get the right case. I am discussing Scott v. Sandford, not Scott v. Emerson. All your quotes refer to the wrong case. If you are going to pose as an expert on the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford, could you please at least find the right case?
Strader found that every state had the authority to determine the status of people in its jurisdiction. See also The Slave, Grace and Lemmon v. The People.
In Scott, Nelson's draft of the original "Opinion of the Court" became his concurring opinion. He asserted that Scott was not free because his status turned on Missouri law and that Missouri had already declared Scott to be a slave.
[cr quoting] "The decision in the Taney Court in the Stader case, being simply a refusal to accept jurisdiction, did not impinge significantly upon Dred Scott's cause before the high court of Missouri. [nc - Dred Scott v. Emerson] Indeed, it was irrelevant unless the Missouri judges decided against him and he attempted an appeal to the United States Supreme Court. Even then, the two cases would be far from parallel. For Scott's claim to freedom rested upon several years of residence on free soil, rather than a brief visit, and residence not only in a free state but in free federal territory ... [nc - p. 260]
Apparently you fail to understand what is being said. In Strader, the former slaves had been briefly in Ohio and later escaped from Kentucky to Canada. Strader was a suit for damages against men who allegedly aided the escape. In Scott, the case involved a slave domiciled in a slave state, seeking freedom, and litigants domiciled in different states.
Your apparent inference that the Court could have found a lack of jurisdiction to hear the case [in Scott v. Sandford] would have left the Missouri decision standing and would not have changed the result of the case. Scott would still have been a slave. The Supreme Court of Missouri having ruled against him, Scott's only hope for freedom was to have the Supreme Court find jurisdiction to hear the case.
In the Opinion of the Court, in Scott v. Sandford, Taney wrote "...the plea in abatement is necessarily under consideration; and it becomes, therefore, our duty to decide whether the facts stated in the plea are or are not sufficient to show that the plaintiff is not entitled to sue as a citizen in a court of the United States."
[cr quoting] "Taney's Stader opinion, if accepted as precedent, would have a controlling effect on the future disposition of any similar cases in the United States Supreme Court. it amounted to a declaration of judicial self-restraint, promising noninterference by the federal judiciary with state court decisions on the subject. This meant, however, that the effect of the opinion on a case being heard in a state court was permissive rather than controlling.... Taney's remarks, even if relevant to Dred Scott's case, [nc - Dred Scott v. Emerson] indicated neither that Scott was free no that he was still a slave, but only that his condition depended solely on Missouri law." (Pg 260-262)
On March 22, 1852 the Supreme Court of Missouri ruled, in the case of Scott v. Emerson, that under Missouri law, Dred Scott was still a slave. The interpretation of State Law by the highest court of a State is not subject to review by the Supreme Court.
[cr quoting] "The Stader decision had turned on the Court's finding that the Northwest Ordinance was no longer operative in Ohio and that accordingly there was no federal question at issue to justify review of the state court decision. But Dred Scott claimed his freedom by virtue of an operative federal law, and the claim had been denied by the Missouri court. These circumstances plainly qualified his case for appeal under Section 25 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, and Taney's emphatic pronouncement to the contrary was preposterous." (Pg 269)
This remark is in reference to Dred Scott v. Emerson, not Dred Scott v. Sandford. See the paragraph preceding the one from which you quoted: "In short, an appeal was the only proper way to have proceeded in 1852, and it would have been useless." See these two sentences from further down in the paragraph from which you quoted: "Taney took a more extreme position, however. He insisted that the Judiciary Act had not authorized -- and that the Strader precedent would have forbidden -- even acceptance of jurisdiction by the Court in Dred Scott v. Emerson."
As Fehrenbacher notes, no such appeal was attempted. "It is very doubtful that Dred himself could have fared any better by undertaking an appeal; for the Court, if it had accepted jurisdiction, would in all probability have upheld the Missouri court decision."
With regard to Dred Scott v. Sandford:
Justice Wayne wrote the he concurred "entirely in the opinion of the court, as it has been written and read by the Chief Justice -- without any qualification of its reasoning or its conclusions...."
Justice Nelson wrote, "These principles fully establish, that it belongs to the sovereign State of Missouri to determine by her laws the question of slavery within her jurisdiction, subject only to such limitations as may be found in the Federal Constitution; and, further, that the laws of other States of the Confederacy, whether enacted by their Legislatures or expounded by their courts, can have no operation within her territory, or affect rights growing out of her own laws on the subject. This is the necessary result of the independent and sovereign character of the State. The principle is not peculiar to the State of Missouri, but is equally applicable to each State belonging to the Confederacy. The laws of each have no extra-territorial operation within the jurisdiction of another, except such as may be voluntarily conceded by her laws or courts of justice. To the extent of such concession upon the rule of comity of nations, the foreign law may operate, as it then becomes a part of the municipal law of the State. When determined that the foreign law shall have effect, the municipal law of the State retires, and gives place to the foreign law."
Justice Grier wrote: "I also concur with the opinion of the court as delivered by the Chief Justice, that the act of Congress of 6th March, 1820, is unconstitutional and void; and that, assuming the facts as stated in the opinion, the plaintiff cannot sue as a citizen of Missouri in the courts of the United States. But, that the record shows a prima facie case of jurisdiction, requiring the court to decide all the questions properly arising in it; and as the decision of the pleas in bar shows that the plaintiff is a slave, and therefore not entitled to sue in a court of the United States, the form of the judgment is of little importance; for, whether the judgment be affirmed or dismissed for want of jurisdiction, it is justified by the decision of the court, and is the same in effect between the parties to the suit."
You are one confused brigadeer.
The Lemon case never went to the U.S. Supreme Court and Taney never had any opportunity to overturn anything about it. You do have a vivid imagination, however. You managed to write about your non-existent SCOTUS case with great visceral feeling.
It was decided by the highest court of New York in March 1860 and the lower court ruling was upheld.
Eight slaves were being taken by their owner from Virginia to Texas. In 1852, the owner determined the fastest route was to take a boat to New York where they changed to a ship going directly to New Orleans. A Black dockworker in New York obtained a writ of habeas corpus on their behalf. The local judge ruled the "eight colored Virginians" were free the moment they entered New York. In 1857, a higher New York court upheld the decision. Virginia appealed to the highest court on New York which also upheld the decision. The eight former slaves remained free.
This directly follows the ruling in The Slave, Grace (1827).
Grace was a West Indian slave who was taken to England and then returned to Antigua with her master. In the English High Court of Admiralty, Lord Stowell found that Grace was still a slave. He found that her residence in England suspended her status as a slave and she could not have been forced to leave the realm. However, once she returned to a slave jurisdiction, the law of England no longer applied. Once she returned to Antigua, her status was determined by the laws of Antigua.
The ruling in Grace modified the earlier ruling in the case of Somerset v. Stewart (1772).
[cr #387] Ferhenbacher discusses the problem on Pg 247-249 of his book.
At page 272, Fehrenbacher writes the following:
First, no bill of sale or any other legal record of the alleged transaction between Mrs. Chaffee and her brother has ever been found. This does not mean however, that such a document never existed, and besides, a transfer of slaves, unlike one of real property, could have been as informal as the principals desired. In sum, the lack of documentary proof falls short of constituting disproof. The second consideration probably carries more weight. Sanford died on May 5, 1857, two months after the Supreme Court decision in his favor, and his probate papers contain no mention of the Scotts. Moreover, just three weeks later, Dred and his family were manumitted by Taylor Blow, who had recently acquired them from the Chaffees. Thus, if Sanford owned the Scotts in 1853, he must have returned them to his sister at some time before his death in 1857. [13] Again, there is no record of such a transfer, which, again, may have been made informally, but two unrecorded transactions do tend to stretch belief. The facts therefore discourage certitude. Sanford may have owned the Scotts as he said; there is reason to suspect, but no evidence to prove, that he did not. [14]---------------------------------
[13] Walter Ehrlich, "Was the Dred Scott Case Valid?"/AH, LV (1968), 263, maintains that such a transfer "could not have happened" because Sanford was confined in an insane asylum during the entire period from March 6, 1857, until his death on May 5 that same year. This assumes that Sanford would have had to continue as owner until the Supreme Court delivered its decision. However, the suit was an action of trespass for offenses allegedly committed on January 1, 1853, and the grounds for the suit (and for appealing the adverse verdict) presumably would have continued to exist if Sanford had sold Scott sometime before March 6, 1857.
[14] In "Was the Dred Scott Case Valid?" 262-63, Ehrlich points out that the Agreed Statement of Facts includes the egregious misstatement that it was John Emerson who sold Scott and his family to Sanford (Emerson, of course, had been dead since 1843). This may have been just a slip of the pen, or an effort to keep the facts simple, or a fiction employed to keep Mrs. Chaffee's name off the record. It adds to our doubt about Sanford's acknowledgment of ownership, but it proves nothing.
Source: Don E. Fehrenbacher, The Dred Scott Case, p. 272; footnotes p. 662.
Taney opposed something else the government was doing during this period. In order to help finance the war, the government resorted to an income tax of 3% on personal income. However, since the Constitution states that a federal judge's salary may not be diminished while he holds office Taney wrote a letter to Secretary of the Treasury Chase (soon to succeed Taney as Chief Justice) saying that it was illegal to deduct the income from federal judges' salaries. The letter was written on February 16, 1863, and on March 10th Taney had it entered into the Supreme Court's records. In 1872 Secretary of the Treasury Boutwell ordered all the tax refunded, agreeing completely with the then-departed Taney's opinion.
U.S. Supreme Court
POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)
Mr. Justice Field
The constitution of the United States provides in the first section of article 3 that 'the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts as the congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.' The act of congress under discussion imposes, as said, a tax on $6,000 of this compensation, and therefore diminishes each year the compensation provided for every justice. How a similar law of congress was regarded 30 years ago may be shown by the following incident, in which the justices of this court were assessed at 3 per cent. upon their salaries. Against this Chief Justice Taney protested in a letter to Mr. Chase, then secretary of the treasury, appealing to the above article in the constitution, and adding: 'If it [ his salary] can be diminished to that extent by the means of a tax, it may, in the same way, be reduced from time to time, at the pleasure of the legislature.' He explained in his letter the object of the constitutional inhibition thus:
'The judiciary is one of the three great departments of the government created and established by the constitution. Its duties and powers are specifically set forth, and are of a character that require it to be perfectly independent of the other departments. And in order to place it beyond the reach, and above even the suspicion, of any such influence, the power to reduce their compensation is expressly withheld from congress, and excepted from their powers of legislation.'Language could not be more plain than that used in the constitution. It is, moreover, one of its most important and essential provisions. For the articles which limit the powers of the legislative and executive branches of the government, and those which provide safeguards for the protection of the citizen in his person and property, would be of little value without a judiciary to uphold and maintain them which was free from every influence, direct or indirect, that might by possibility, in times of political excitement, warp their judgment.
'Upon these grounds, I regard an act of congress retaining in the treasury a portion of the compensation of the judges as unconstitutional and void.'
This letter of Chief Justice Taney was addressed to Mr. Chase, then secretary of the treasury, and afterwards the successor of Mr. Taney as chief justice. It was dated February 16, 1863; but as no notice was taken of it, on the 10th of March following, at the request of the chief justice, the court ordered that his letter to the secretary of the treasury be entered on the records of the court, and it was so entered. And in the memoir of the chief justice it is stated that the letter was, by this order, preserved 'to testify to future ages that in war, no less than in peace, Chief Justice Taney strove to protect the constitution from violation.'
Subsequently, in 1869, and during the administration of President Grant, when Mr. Boutwell was secretary of the treasury, and Mr. Hoar, of Massachusetts, was attorney general, there were in several of the statutes of the United States, for the assessment and collection of internal revenue, provisions for taxing the salaries of all civil officers of the United States, which included, in their literal application, the salaries of the president and of the judges oft he United States. The question arose whether the law which imposed such a tax upon them was constitutional. The opinion of the attorney general thereon was requested by the secretary of the treasury. The attorney general, in reply, gave an elaborate opinion advising the secretary of the treasury that no income tax could be lawfully assessed and collected upon the salaries of those officers who were in office at the time the statute imposing the tax was passed, holding on this subject the views expressed by Chief Justice Taney. His opinion is published in volume 13 of the Opinions of the Attorney General, at page 161. I am informed that it has been followed ever since without question by the department supervising or directing the collection of the public revenue.
Yes, I want to root out the Lincoln bloat.
I post informational documentation to support my views. It almost always comes from recognized authorities in their field. You don't agree with much of it, and have trouble refuting it. Instead, you make ad hominem attacks.
Farber? ROTFL. Nolu chan, GOPCapitalist et al post from LEGAL, not informational, Supreme Court decisions, the Federalist Papers, the constitutional convention debates, the LEGAL state ratifications, and the LEGAL Declarations of Secession
FR is for people who, like the founder, believe in and support their country and the principles it stands for, and hope to make it a better place. You reject many of those principles; you pine for a time when states could perpetuate great social evils; when the vision of the founders for human equality meant nothing.
No pining for anything of the sort. What is longed for is a government of checks and balances, as the founders wrote it, before Lincoln the Usurper crossed the Rubicon and became Caesar, assuming the duties of the legislative and judicial branches. Regarding your bloviating and asinine opinion about the founders vision of equality, as I posted yesterday, the very FIRST federal citizenship act applied to whites only.
The Confederacy was the antithesis of the nation envisioned by Madison, Jefferson, Washington, Hamilton, and ultimately, by Lincoln.
The Confederacy duplicated almost everything within the federal [not national] Constitution. I reject the monarchial views held by Hamilton. Jefferson and Madison were anti-federalists, Washington and Hamilton federalists. I most decidedly reject the white supremacist/separatist views of Lincoln.
True conservatives believe in equal opportunity, not equal outcome. The Confederacy did not believe in equality at all.
Anybody see the pattern here? When did the Union end slavery? Ever hear of the 13th Amendment? When did all the Northern black laws end? When were blacks not discriminated against?
That is incompatible with your neo-reb denial of a binding national covenant called the Constitution.
First and foremost, nowhere does it state that it is permanent and inescapable. What it does contain is Amendment X, which states that the powers NOT delegated [look up the definition] by the Constitution [which were delegated by the states] to the federal government, and those not prohibited by it [the Constitution, not the federal government] to the states, remain with the states.
The Confederacy did not respect individual dignity and freedom, unless you were rich and white.
Anybody see a pattern here? I guess that explains all those rich, white Yankees sailing to Africa for their boatloads of human flesh, their industrial sweat shops where millions worked for subsistence wages. I guess that explains the millions of ex-slaves that fled to Union states, oops, I'm sorry, that never happened. Northern states had black codes and laws to prevent equality, to prevent emmigration by blacks into their states, even fines and punishment for doing so.
Another tenet of the Republican party is that "I believe in equal rights, equal justice, and equal opportunity for all, regardless of race, creed, age, sex, or national origin." In the 1860's, this was not obtainable, but it was a goal that I believe Lincoln would have supported. Again, it is not compatible with Confederate dogma.
Bravo Sierra. Lincoln is on record almost till his dying day advocating for blacks to be colonized/repatriated out of the US. Days before his death he talked with Gen. Benjamin Butler about rewarding blacks with an all-expense paid trip to Panama to dig a canal.
And the Republican Party has always stood for the ideal that "the most effective, responsible, and responsive government is government closest to the people."
Not Lincoln's, anyone that thought differently was thrown into prison.
The function of the national government is to guarantee the promises of the Preamble and the vision of the Declaration.
There are no powers delegated by the Preamble, it's a statement of intent. The Declaration of Independence is not codified within the Constitution.
The Confederacy was not about "liberty" - it wouldn't allow liberty or the full benefits of citizenship to most of its residents.
Anybody see a pattern here? The Declaration Of Independence freed how many union slaves?
Lincoln, on the other hand, was determined that "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from this earth."
Was the Confederacy attempting to destroy the Union? That government never disappeared and it was never under attack. Lincoln was the consummate liar. The Great Prevaricator.
The liberty that hundreds of millions of people enjoy today is the legacy of Lincoln, because he refused to allow the self-serving southern "leadership" destroy the Union.
Lincoln supported a constitutional amendment ensuring that blacks could be enslaved forever, and wanted to deport as many as he could out of the country. It wasn't Lincoln.
He keeps posting rebuttal evidence that damages your arguments. He keeps posting it because your major debate strategy is, disingenuously, to keep denying, denying, denying that your interlocutor has a point, and to pretend that your arguments are in no way dented, when in fact he absolutely does have a point, and the evidence supports him, and yes, your argument has long since started to look like an entrant in a Carolina Piedmont demolition derby -- the one with New York license plates.
The formal term for what you are doing is "slothful induction", or denying your opponent his just due. It's dishonest, and you can knock it off any time now.
I'd also suggest you knock off the diatribal ad hominem, but after nolu chan started composing songs about you, I don't think I can quite bring myself to do that with a straight face.
Fehrenbacher seems to have a problem with Taney, but there were 6 other justices of a similar opinion. And again, the court continued the position held by the founders, framers, 1st Congress which limited citizenship to whites only, the second Congress, the third Congress ... Anybody see a pattern here?
At #380, I wrote "We know your position. Those lacking your ignorance have a different opinion. "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."
AT #360, GOPcap wrote: "I take it that in your perverse world "bigotry, predjudice, and racism" is defined to be the act of denouncing nazis and getting aryan nation types like your buddy #3 kicked off the forum? Strange..."
At #356, Gianni said "It's painfully obvious what you're trying to do. Such may be acceptable in a strip 100 miles inland between LALA land and the Land of Fruits and Nuts. In the balance of the country, it's the mark of a true ass. I'm asking nicely: Please, pretty please with sugar on top, knock it off."
At #351, I said "An accurate quote of Hitler or anyone else is acceptable. What is unacceptable is espousing or praising the doctrine therein, such as was done by the most recently banned brigade member. He was not smeared, he was quoting and espousing neo-nazi doctrine. The other thread where he was posting the same neo-nazi doctrine was also pulled in its entirety and none of us was on that thread at all. That clearly narrows down the reason the two threads were pulled."
At #335, 4CJ wrote "Nazi views? ROTFL!!!! Sorry to disappoint, but to me ALL men are children of God - all descended from Adam and Eve. All equal. It was #3Idiot, a poster on your side, that espoused a separatist/white supremacist position."
Back at #321, 4CJ called Hitler a "bloviating idiot."
You have been asked repeatedly, "do you or do you not agree with the view of the union described by Hitler in that quote?" You seem to be the only one unable to speak for yourself. So, is it that you can't make up your mind whether you agree with it or not, or you can't admit that you agree with it?
Nolu chan wrote pointed out that my position was that Hitler (among others) was a bloviating idiot. Hitler was a rascist, a believer of white supremacy, and a white separatist responsible for some of the wort atrocities ever committed by man. I disavow ANY and ALL such racial positions, I have been adamant from day one - I believe that we are ALL God's children, descended from one set of parents - Adam and Eve. We are all brothers, there was no second creation responsible for separate races, nor are blacks the exclusive descendants of Cain.
Nolu chan wrote, "An accurate quote of Hitler or anyone else is acceptable. What is unacceptable is espousing or praising the doctrine therein, such as was done by the most recently banned brigade member. He was not smeared, he was quoting and espousing neo-nazi doctrine." I agree.
Sometimes you must be cruel to be kind, yes?
Or as the spectral apparition said to Jack Nicholson's character in the kitchen of the Overlook Hotel, "You must be very strict with them!"
Yep. Any parent would understand, you simply can't give a child everything they want.
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.