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
With regard to the past "Klan" discussions, they were on the late, great 4,400 post thread that got pulled. If you, or any of the others listed feel you should not have been included in "your," then consider yourself excluded. I could go back and check my past posts, but I'll take your word for it.
Since I don't know you, and have read thousands of similar posts on related threads, I would have no way of knowing if you were serious.
I only know WhiskeyPapa (Walt) through his posts. I have agreed with him from time to time and I have taken him to task from time to time. I am unaware of why he banned (specifically), but from the rhetoric posted here (which I in no way expect to be "fair and balanced" - or even particular accurate), I'd say he stepped in it on another subject.
I believe I gave you an example in an earlier post.
I'm sorry, GOPc, you fail this grammar lesson. The proper answer is: (b) unwarranted
You seem to know a lot about Hitler. Wonder why?
I recall one good quotation regarding Taney, which I suspected would cause you to blow a sphincter.
"Allegedly, though (a) you have a bad tendency to truncate his quotations in a way that leaves out material that is critical to your side, and (b) of the material that Farber has supporting Lincoln's side, the bulk of it is extremely weak and specious as I have shown in many thorough deconstructions of his text on FR."
As I have explained to you before, it is not my obligation to post material that does not support my point. You are aping NC on this issue. I post the supporting material, or the material that contradicts and refutes you position. Many of Farber's discussions are lengthly, so I often excerpt for brevity. I try not to post hairballs and I generally ignore those that have been posted. When I post on a single subject is going to be long, I often give a warning and provide explanation of why I think the material supports my point.
If you don't like that style, don't reply.
As far as Farber's reasoning being "weak and specious," you are welcome to your semi-legally-educated opinion.
"Yeah, and in case you haven't figured it out yet, he's mocking you, mocking Farber, and pointing out that you cannot seem to consistently present Farber nor can Farber, in many cases, consistently present himself."
Yes, I know. I also imagine he's drooling all over himself too.
I take it you still haven't been able to figure out Jaffa's Phd. Your argument with respect to Jaffa fails because he is a recognized "expert" who has authored numerous peer-reviewed articles and published several text books on those subjects. That Jaffa espouses some unconventional or archaic views in no way invalidates his observations. That is the purpose of academic discussion and debate. Your usual reply is that Jaffa is a "wacko" or a "kook" or some other epithet. In doing so, you are not discussing the contention, but rather, making an attack on Jaffa's character or associations. That is the textbook definition of an ad hominem attack.
You can put your Debater's Guide away now; it's not doing you any good.
"Harriet Martineau, writing in 1834-35 and commenting upon the statement of a Boston gentleman that the Negroes were perfectly well treated in New England in the matter of education, the franchise, and otherwise, states that while they are nominally citizens."
Robert Spector wrote about a landmark Negro emancipation case in "The Quock Walker Cases (1781-83) - Slavery, its Abolition, and negro Citizenship in Early Massachusetts" in the Journal of Negro History, 1968
Walker, an enslaved Negro who had been promised emancipation by his late former owner, sued for his freedom. In the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling, Justice Cushing held for Walker on the basis of the Massachusetts State Constitution of 1780 and natural law grounds. Cushing wrote:
"As to the doctrine of slavery and the right of Christians to hold Africans in perpetual servitude, and sell and treat them as we do our horses and cattle, that (it is true) has been heretofore countenanced by the Province Laws formerly, but nowhere is it expressly enacted or established. It has been a usage -- a usage which took its origin from the practice of some of the European nations, and the regulations of British government respecting the then Colonies, for the benefit of trade and wealth. But whatever sentiments have formerly prevailed in this particular or slid in upon us by the example of others, a different idea has taken place with the people of America, more favorable to the natural rights of mankind, and to that natural, innate desire of Liberty, with which Heaven (without regard to color, complexion, or shape of noses-features) has inspired all the human race. And upon this ground our Constitution of Government, by which the people of this Commonwealth have solemnly bound themselves, sets out with declaring that all men are born free and equal -- and that every subject is entitled to liberty, and to have it guarded by the laws, as well as life and property -- and in short is totally repugnant to the idea of being born slaves. This being the case, I think the idea of slavery is inconsistent with our own conduct and Constitution; and there can be no such thing as perpetual servitude of a rational creature, unless his liberty is forfeited by some criminal conduct or given up by personal consent or contract ...."
"15 states refused to ratify the 14th Amendment. In response 28 Senators were unconstitutionally denied a seat in Congress. At which point Congress illegally overthrew the legitimate, duly-elected republican governments of most of the Confederate states via the Reconstruction Acts (see their ratification of the 13th Amendment for proof of republican govenments). New military governments were instituted (another violation of the republican guarantee), and these puppet governments ratified the 14th."
"The 14th Amendment was adopted only by virtue of ratification subsequent to earlier rejection. newly constituted legislatures in both North Carolina and South Carolina (respectively July 4 and July 9, 1868), ratified the proposed Amendment, although earlier legislatures had rejected the proposal. The Secretary of State issued a proclamtion, which, though doubtful as to the effect of the attempted withdrawals by Ohio and new jersey, entertained no doubt as to the validity of the ratification by North and South Carolina. the following day, (July 21, 1868), Congress passed a resolution which declared the 14th Amendment to be part of the Constitution and directed the Secretary of State so to promulgate it. The Secretary waited, however, until the newly constituted legislature of had ratified the Amendment, subsequent to an earlier rejection, before the promulgation opf the ratification of the new Amendment."
"Amemdments XIII, XIV, and XV are commonly known as the Reconstruction Amendments, inasmuch as they followed the Civil War, and were drafted by Republicans who were bent on imposing their own policy of reconstruction on the South. Post-bellum legislatures there - Mississippi, South Carolina, Georgia, for example - had set up laws which, it was charged, were contrived to perpetuate Negro slavery under another name." (World Almanac entry)
Like I said before - old, bad habits die hard.
"The 14th also prevented (ex post facto) former Confederates the right of suffrage. So much for yankee visions of equality."
Why don't you actually try reading Section 3 of the 14th Amendment?
I'm not the one quoting Hitler. I'm not the one used false analogies to smear people.
If a poster uses a Hitler quotation by way of comparison, that person invokes Hitler as authority. That person gives creedance to Hitler's evil. That person is not condeming Hitler's writing, but utilizing the ideas and giving them substance.
"It was capitan refugio who said that Lincoln was justified in using invented and unconstitutional emergency powers."
I said nothing of the sort. Lincoln's use of emergency powers was ratified by the Congress in 1861 and 1863, and upheld by the Supreme Court in 1863. I am not a Missourian, but show me anyway.
"... you started trying to paint us as Nazis."
Review the thread and you'll see (1) I did not bring Nazi political philosophy into the discussion, and (2) I objected when it was brought up. My objections were an invitation for the children to post more of that satanic crap. You're still doing it too.
Wrong again.
I'm glad you feel appointed, then. ;)
Now you're engaging in teleology. White Southerners didn't feel in 1866 that blacks were part of American society any more than Abraham Lincoln did in 1858 per his quotes above posted by others.
That they were included in American society rather than colonized was a matter subject to the political will of others: the black community was indeed still a slave society in all important respects(how could it change in one year?), however much their immediate circumstances may have suddenly improved, but they escaped colonization and expatriation only because Lincoln couldn't find the political will to put his ultimate plan into effect, and because the Black Republicans decided, viciously, to play "let's you and him fight" with their hated, defeated enemies. That's a Transactional Analysis game, btw -- this version was played at the level of the third degree, the degree in which smoke rises and blood flows. Postwar Republican Reconstruction politics relied on using the black population as a weapon against white Southerners in a program of permanent political domination for the Republicans' own socioeconomic benefit. And boy, did they benefit.
But who are you, Capitan, to judge those Southerners, at the comfortable distance of 140 years? Really, who are you to make these calls about other people's lights and times? You sound like a liberal, confidently and hypocritically calling dozens on people you don't know, for your own benefit.
Wait 'til you lose a war to people who hate you, before you go around telling everyone what you wouldn't do.
Wrong again. "Couldn't care less" would more accurately describe my feelings.
You conveniently forget the events which shaped changing opinion between 1858 and 1866. "White southerners" didn't feel blacks were human beings in 1858, 1866, or for decades afterward.
"... but [blacks] escaped colonization and expatriation only because Lincoln couldn't find the political will to put his ultimate plan into effect ..."
You were aware, were you not, that for a number of years before the war, Roger Taney was the vice president of the American Colonization Society?
"But who are you, Capitan, to judge those Southerners, at the comfortable distance of 140 years?"
Those who decline to establish objective moral values, or tolerate practices contrary to the laws of God and nature, are called "moral relativists." "All men are created equal" is considered a fundamental tenet of natural law and this country's political legacy. To the extent that southerners either denied the tenet itself, or rationalized that blacks were not human (and therefore did not apply), those who would today justify that conduct fit squarely into the category of moral relativist. Your post suggests that you are willing to tolerate, and apologize for, historic amoral conduct.
"Wait 'til you lose a war to people who hate you, before you go around telling everyone what you wouldn't do."
As you have read, I try to avoid "hate." But I fully understand your underlying motivation. And I have a reasonably good appreciation of the southern culture - having married a southerner, having ancestors who lived in the south and fought for the south, lived in the south and remained loyal, lived in the north and fought for the north (and others who did not arrive in this country until the 20th century), and having lived in Texas for a few years (if you want to consider Texas as "southern" - I would call it a distinctly different culture).
Your example was faulty just like your attempted vocabulary expansion.
In which case, you have failed to show how a quotation with relevance to the subject was unwarranted. Thanks for proving my point once again. Oh, and please cease your gratuitous use of the word gratuitous.
Though you no doubt intend this question to be a baited one, I have nothing to hide unlike certain persons who cannot bring themselves to state their disagreement with a single Hitler quote.
There was a time when I was considering a minor in German and, to that end, I took two semesters of courses on 20th century Germany. Both relied heavily upon Friedrich Hayek's writings about Hitler and the intellectual origin of his movement in the far left.
Indeed it is not, however it is your obligation not to artificially truncate your sources in a way that makes their material sound more friendly to your argument than it actually is. That is called willful deception and your posts are full of it.
There were at least three. In the first one you introduced him. The second contained the Taney quote. The third contained subsequent paragraphs to that Taney quote. You also made a very strong endorsement of him by suggesting that I should read more of his work. That's when I revealed to you and the thread exactly who Finkelman was and you've been dancing around with egg on your face ever since, refusing every napkin offered to you to wipe it off.
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.