Posted on 10/28/2004 6:07:00 AM PDT by Pokey78
If the loving heart of the Great Emancipator found its natural amorous passions overwhelmingly directed toward those of his own sex, it would certainly be a stunning rebuke to the Republican Party’s scapegoating of same-sex love for electoral purposes. And a forthcoming book by the late Dr. C.A. Tripp — The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln, to be published in the new year by Free Press — makes a powerful case that Lincoln was a lover of men.
Tripp, who worked closely in the 1940s and 1950s with the groundbreaking sexologist Alfred Kinsey, was a clinical psychologist, university professor and author of the 1975 best-seller The Homosexual Matrix, which helped transcend outdated Freudian clichés and establish that a same-sex affectional and sexual orientation is a normal and natural occurrence.
In his book on Lincoln, Tripp draws on his years with Kinsey, who, he wrote, "confronted the problem of classifying mixed sex patterns by devising his 0-to-6 scale, which allows the ranking of any homosexual component in a person’s life from none to entirely homosexual. By this measure Lincoln qualifies as a classical 5 — predominantly homosexual, but incidentally heterosexual."
Tripp also found, based on multiple historical accounts, that Lincoln attained puberty unusually early, by the age of 9 or 10 — early sexualization being a prime Kinsey indicator for same-sex proclivities. Even Lincoln’s stepmother admitted in a post-assassination interview that young Abe "never took much interest in the girls." And Tripp buttresses his findings that Lincoln was a same-sex lover with important new historical contributions.
(Excerpt) Read more at laweekly.com ...
They didn't try because those who wanted to were in a tiny minority. Which, I guess, means that the rest didn't think that unilateral secession was possible. They certainly didn't threaten in in the documents that the convention produced.
You would be better off not learning a bit of history after the 6th grade than learn spoon-fed propaganda masquerading as education. I'm sure all those little Soviet kids learned that Stalin was a good guy, too.
Perhaps. But all you southron types learn that the rebellion really wasn't about slavery, so you don't have a lot of room to complain.
Because the Herndon biography, unlike Speed's, was built upon a massive collection of letters, personal papers, and interviews conducted by Herndon from 1865 through the time of the book. Herndon's co-author Jesse Weik also augmented this collection by taking additional interviews after Herndon's death and published them in an addendum to The Life of Lincoln. The Herndon-Weik collection on Lincoln currently resides in the Library of Congress.
You base this on what?
On the fact that it is impossible to reproduce word-for-word the exact wording of a single conversation held 30 years earlier even if you remember the conversation itself.
Why does one need to be a Christian "in the normal sense" to believe in God?
One need not be, however there are persons who believe in some form of a higher being but are not Christian or, speaking more broadly, not even in the judeo-christian umbrella. Exempting atheists, virtually all religions in the world believe in a god of some form or another. That does not make them all Christians though, nor are the majority of those "gods" legitimate. Lincoln, from all that we know, did not practice within the judeo-christian umbrella of faiths and thus falls outside that category.
Lincoln attended services regularly
That is false. He never belonged to any formal church and only occassionally attended a church in DC with his wife because she insisted upon going.
spoke often of God in speeches and letters and conversations
Speeches, yes. And as previously noted, he consciously did so because it was rhetorically advantageous. His references to the divine in letters are both infrequent and vague, containing nothing that is definitively christian. Almost all "conversations" in which he is said to have spoken about religion are apocryphal just like your alleged exchange with Daniel Sickles that never happened.
but is still a non-believer. Based on Herndon alone.
Nope. Based on Herndon, Ward Hill Lamon, and Mary Todd Lincoln - three members of the very small circle of people who truly knew Lincoln on a personal level.
Again, why does someone have to be a member of a recognized Christian sect to believe in God?
They don't, but that also gives rise to WHICH GOD they believe in. Persons who fall under the judeo-christian umbrella worship what is often referred to as the God of Moses and Abraham. But not all persons who claim to worship a "god" worship the one true God of Moses and Abraham. Hindus worship a set of "gods." Mohammedans worship a moon deity who they have even tried to recast in a manner that bears great resemblance to the Judeo-Christian God, though ultimately they deny Him. Animists, pagans, voodoo witchdoctors, the ancient greeks and egyptians also all worshipped a "god" or set of "gods," but that doesn't make them believers in the real God any more than it does with Lincoln.
Lincoln made no secret of his dislike of organized religious sects with their rigid dogmas. But from that you take it a step further and proclaim he had no faith at all.
No, non-seq. From the volume of existing evidence provided by Lincoln's closests friends and family I conclude that Lincoln, over the course of his life, wavered between atheism and a very loose, liberal form of deism. A deist has some degree of faith in something, non-seq. But often that something is not the true God, thus many deists and especially the looser ones CANNOT be said to truly worship the one true God.
To you perhaps.
No, non-seq. To anybody who reads it honestly for what it is. Treatment of Christ as a philsopher-teacher but not a divine being was rejected as a fundamental heresy to the Christian faith in the early middle ages and has been ever since. Claiming the sanction and will of God to explain, justify, cover, and remove culpability for acts of evil for which sinful actors are responsible has been rejected as a fundamental blasphemy upon the name of Christ since the founding days of the church and ever since.
But if Lincoln was raising himself to a deity then why the uncertainty?
He was not raising himself to be a deity itself (though some of his followers at Claremont have done just that). He was raising himself to be an agent of divine will, in which case a quest to find out what that willed action should be (i.e. the uncertainty) is the obvious next step.
Okay, then let's do a little thought experiment. Let's assume a county with a three-member county board. The three of them, for some reason, announce that they've decided to secede their county from the United States. There's no mechanism for recall and they won't be up for re-election for four years. They're the only ones who want this secession.
Is it legitimate?
Cut the garbage, non-seq. Nobody here is judging Lincoln's soul. We are, however, attempting to assess the evidence about what his religion happened to be. Using the straw man of the former to divert and deny an attempt at the latter is an act of fraud at its very core.
By your same illogic one could argue that we "don't have the ability to look into Hitler's soul from beyond the grave and pass unerring judgement on his faith" then denounce all who dare to point out that Hitler (a) was an occultist non-belier, (b) had a self-divinity complex insofar as he though of himself as an agent of nordic mythological divine will, and (c) is almost certainly rotting in hell right now because of his lack of true faith and because of his crimes of evil against humanity.
Thirty-five years ago Ingersoll claimed Lincoln as one of his own, as a free thinker, or infidel. Lincoln is not as easy as that to classify. Already many letters and some speeches of Lincoln have been quoted in which he spoke of God, or of his Maker; and there are others to come which related to the most solemn occasions evocative of the deepest feelings and the sincerest expressions. He was running for office now and again and he knew that it was bad policy to speak of his doubts, his unfaith. One does not know whether to believe or not that in his New Salem days Lincoln wrote an essay against the Bible, in which he attacked its inspiration as God's revelation, and in which he strove to prove that Jesus was not the son of God. Herndon affirmed in his book that Lincoln did this. But Herndon knew at first hand about Lincoln's state of mind after he came to Springfield; and he wrote from the report of a friend of Lincoln's who claimed to hear what Lincoln said, that at the clerk's office on several occasions Lincoln had a Bible with him and proceeded to read a chapter and then skeptically to dissect it. John T. Stuart, Lincoln's first law partner, said of him that he was an open infidel; and others called him an avowed atheist. This was in the early Springfield days before he developed caution. Stuart further asserted that Lincoln always denied the divinity of Jesus. On the other hand the sober David Davis scouted the idea that Lincoln talked about his religion, especially to any stranger. He added, however, that Lincoln had no faith in the Christian sense, but that he had faith in laws, principles, causes and effects. Another man, a friend of Lincoln's, gave the opinion that Lincoln believed in a Creator; and that, as to the Christian theory that Christ is God, Lincoln stated to him that it had better be taken for granted; and while the divinity of Jesus came to man in doubtful shape, yet the system of Christianity was an ingenuous one, and perhaps was calculated to do good. We find other witnesses saying that Lincoln was utterly incapable of insincerity on this subject, as on all others.
The reader is almost as well equipped to pass upon Lincoln's sincerity as Lincoln's associates were. One man stated that Lincoln repelled the idea of the innate depravity of man, the possibility of miracles, the nature and design of future rewards and punishments, and other orthodox tenets of the churches. He believed that Lincoln coincided with Channing and Theodore Parker in his faith. In May, 1865, John G. Nicolay, one of Lincoln's secretaries, wrote Herndon that Lincoln did not change his religious opinions in any way from the time he left Springfield to the time of his death. And Mrs. Lincoln, who came on to Springfield to meet Herndon and talk to him about Lincoln for the purposes of Herndon's contemplated biography, said: "Mr. Lincoln had no faith and no hope in the usual acceptation of those words. He never joined a church; but still, as I believe, he was a religious man by nature. He first seemed to think about the subject when our boy Willie died, and then, more than ever, about the time he went to Gettysburg; but it was a kind of poetry, and he was never a technical Christian." [1] In these words Mrs. Lincoln unquestionably touched verifiable points of psychology.
[1] Herndon, II, 149 et seq.
Edgar Lee Masters, Lincoln, The Man, Copr 1931, Reprint 1997, The Foundation for American Education, pp. 149-50.
On September 30, 1862, Lincoln set down privately his meditations on the Divine will. "The will of God prevails," he wrote. "In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God. God cannot be for and against the same thing." It was evident then, however, that God was on both sides. "In the present civil war it is quite possible that God's purpose is something different from the purpose of either party; and yet the human instrumentalities, working just as they do, are of the best adaption to effect his purpose. I am almost ready to say that this is probably true; that God wills this contest, and wills that it shall not end yet. By his mere great power on the minds of the now contestants, he could have either saved or destroyed the Union without a human contest. Yet the contest began. And having begun, he could give the final victory to either side any day. Yet the contest proceeds." [2] This Calvinistic fatalism is the poisonous doctrine which justifies human cruelty. There was such a thing as pagan cruelty. It was honest. This is Christian cruelty, which is dishonest and irresponsible. It does what it would and then throws the burden upon an anthropomorphic deity.
[2] Lincoln's Works, II, p. 243.
Edgar Lee Masters, Lincoln, The Man, Copr 1931, Reprint 1997, The Foundation for American Education, p. 429.
CHAPTER IV
WAS LINCOLN A CHRISTIAN?
Almost all the Christians of Springfield, his home, opposed him for President. He was an infidel, and "when he went to church, he went to mock and came away to mimic." (Lamon's "Life of Lincoln," p. 487.) He wrote and talked against religion in the most shocking words. He never denied the charge, publicly urged, that he was an infidel. His wife and closest friends attest all this. He became reticent about his religious views when he entered political life, and thereafter indulged freely in pious phrases in his published documents and passionate expressions of piety began to abound in his speeches: but he never denied or flinched from his religious opinions and never changed them.
As to Lincoln's attitude towards religion, Dr. Holland in his Abraham Lincoln, says (p. 286) that twenty out of the twenty-three ministers of the different denominations of Christians, and a very large majority of the prominent members of the churches in his home, Springfield, Illinois, opposed him for President. He says (page 241):... "Men who knew him throughout all his professional and political life" have said "that, so far from being a religious man, or a Christian, the less said about that the better." He says of Lincoln's first recorded religious utterance, used in closing his farewell address to Springfield, that it "was regarded by many as an evidence both of his weakness and of his hypocrisy,.... and was tossed about as a joke -- 'old Abe's last.' "
Hapgood's Lincoln (page 291, et seq.) records that the pious words with which the Emancipation Proclamation closes were added at the suggestion of Secretary Chase, and so does Usher (Reminiscences of Lincoln, &c, p. 91), and so does Rhodes; and Rhodes shows him "an infidel, if not an atheist," and adds, "When Lincoln entered political life he became reticent upon his religious opinions." (History of the United States, Vol. IV. p. 213 et seq.). Of his words that savor of religion, Lamon says (Life of Lincoln, p. 503): "If he did not believe in it, the masses of 'the plain people' did, and no one was ever more anxious to do what was of good report among men." Lamon further says (page 497) that after Mr. Lincoln "appreciated the violence and extent of the religious prejudices which freedom of discussion from his standpoint would be sure to rouse against him," and "the immense and augmenting power of the churches," (page 502), "he indulged freely in indefinite expressions about 'Divine Providence,' 'the justice of God,' the 'favor of the Most High,' in his published documents, but he nowhere ever professed the slightest faith in Jesus as the Son of God and the Saviour of men." (Page 501, et seq.) "He never told any one that he accepted Jesus as the Christ, or performed one of the acts which necessarily followed upon such a conviction."... "When he went to church at all, he went to mock, and came away to mimic." (Page 487.) Leland says (Abraham Lincoln, Vol. II, p. 55, et seq.):... "It is certain that after the unpopularity of free-thinkers had forced itself upon his mind, the most fervidly passionate expressions of piety began to abound in his speeches." Lamon tells in detail (Life of Lincoln, p. 157, et seq.) of the writing and the burning of a "little book," written by Lincoln with the purpose to disprove the truth of the Bible and the divinity of Christ, and tells how it was burned without his consent by his friend Hill, lest it should ruin his political career before a Christian people. He says that Hill's son called the book "infamous," and that "the book was burnt, but he never denied or regretted its composition; on the contrary, he made it the subject of free and frequent conversations with his friends at Springfield, and stated with much particularity and precision the origin, arguments, and object of the work." Rhodes (History of the United States, Vol. IV, p. 213) tells the same story, with confirmation in another place. (Vol. III, p. 368, in note.)
Herndon describes the "essay" or "book" as "an argument against Christianity, striving to prove that the Bible was not inspired, and therefore not God's revelation, and that Jesus Christ was not the Son of God." Herndon says that Lincoln intended to have the "essay" published, and further quotes one of Lincoln's associates of that day, who says that Lincoln "would come into the clerk's office where I and some young men were writing,... and would bring a Bible with him; would read a chapter and argue against it." [1]
A letter of Herndon (Lamon's Lincoln, p. 492, et seq.) says of Lincoln's contest with the Rev. Peter Cartwright for Congress in 1848 (page 404): "In that contest he was accused of being an infidel, if not an atheist; he never denied the charge; would not; 'would die first/ because he knew it could be and would be proved." And Lamon further says (page 499): "The following extract from a letter from Mr. Herndon was extensively published throughout the United States about the time of its date, February 18, 1870, and met with no contradiction from any responsible source: 'When Lincoln was a candidate for our Legislature, he was accused of being an infidel; of having said that Jesus Christ was an illegitimate child. He never denied the opinions or flinched from his religious views.' "
On pages 487 to 514 Lamon's Lincoln copies numerous letters from Lincoln's intimate associates, one from Davis, [2] a Justice of the Supreme Court, and one from Lincoln's wife, that fully confirm the above as to his attitude of hostility to religion. Lamon copies (Life of Lincoln, p. 495) another letter of Herndon, as follows: ""When Mr. Lincoln left this city" -- Springfield, Illinois -- "for Washington, I know that he had undergone no change in his religious opinions or views." And Lamon gives (page 480) a letter of Nicolay, his senior private secretary throughout his Administration, which states that he perceived no change in Lincoln's attitude toward religion after his entrance on the presidency. The Cosmopolitan, of March, 1901, says that Nicolay ''probably was closer to the martyred President than any other man;... that he knew Lincoln as President and as man more intimately than any other man."...
[1] Herndon's Lincoln, Vol. III., p. 39, et seq., and 439, et seq., and Lamon's Lincoln, p. 492.
[2] The Appendix shows that he "was an intimate friend of Lincoln.
Charles L.C. Minor, The Real Lincoln, 1904, pp. 26-30
Lincoln, Abraham, 1809-1865.: Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Volume 1.
Handbill Replying to Charges of Infidelity [1]
July 31, 1846
To the Voters of the Seventh Congressional District.
FELLOW CITIZENS:
A charge having got into circulation in some of the neighborhoods of this District, in substance that I am an open scoffer at Christianity, [2] I have by the advice of some friends concluded to notice the subject in this form. That I am not a member of any Christian Church, is true; but I have never denied the truth of the Scriptures; and I have never spoken with intentional disrespect of religion in general, or of any denomination of Christians in particular. It is true that in early life I was inclined to believe in what I understand is called the "Doctrine of Necessity''---that is, that the human mind is impelled to action, or held in rest by some power, over which the mind itself has no control; and I have sometimes (with one, two or three, but never publicly) tried to maintain this opinion in argument. The habit of arguing thus however, I have, entirely left off for more than five years. And I add here, I have always understood this same opinion to be held by several of the Christian denominations. The foregoing, is the whole truth, briefly stated, in relation to myself, upon this subject.
I do not think I could myself, be brought to support a man for office, whom I knew to be an open enemy of, and scoffer at, religion. Leaving the higher matter of eternal consequences, between him and his Maker, I still do not think any man has the right thus to insult the feelings, and injure the morals, of the community in which he may live. If, then, I was guilty of such conduct, I should blame no man who should condemn me for it; but I do blame those, whoever they may be, who falsely put such a charge in circulation against me.
July 31, 1846.
A. LINCOLN.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 383
Annotation
[1] Illinois Gazette, August 15, 1846. The handbill likewise appears in the Tazewell Whig, August 22, 1846.
[2] See Lincoln's letter to Allen Ford, August 11, 1846, infra.
"Display them. Time to put up or shut up."
Unlike your group, such as nolu coward, I can back up my statements. Refer to the Official Records of the War of the Rebellion, Volume II. The section is "Suspected and Disloyal Persons" and begins on page 1021. Peruse the whole section - it is very revealing about "suspects."
Now that I have put up, I suggest that you shut up.
The privilege of the writ of habeas was suspended, for the precise reasons provided in the Constitution. No judge, federal or local, was empowered to enforce the writ where it was suspended. Those that sought to do so, did at their own peril. You may recall Taney only tried it once.
Any criticism of Lincoln as unorthodox also applies to many or most of the leading lights of America's founding generation. Indeed, in some ways, Lincoln was more religious than Washington, Adams, or Jefferson. The age of enlightenment had passed, and been replaced by a more evangelical temper.
For Lincoln and many in his day, individual reading of the Bible and attempts to understand and apply such truths as it contained took precedence over church membership and dogma. America embraced a Protestant notion of individual conscience and judgment in matters of religion, and it's too late to overturn that tradition or to fault those who followed it, rather than rely on dogma.
Lincoln did regularly attend Presbyterian services after 1850, but declined to become an official member of the church. The difference between Lincoln's generation and that of the founders is that in 18th century Massachusetts or Virginia and 19th century Illinois one would automatically be assumed to be a member of the established church in colonies with state-supported churches unless one explicitly denied membership. In the next century, on the moving frontier, church membership was often assumed to be a matter of inspiration and revivalism, and people who would have been passively counted as Anglicans or Congregationalists in colonial times remained unchurched because they didn't feel a calling. It's estimated that only 23% of Americans were church members in 1860.
It ought to be clear that if Lincoln believed in Providence, in some Almighty or Most High who affected the course of events on earth he could not be an atheist, agnostic, or deist. Still less was he a Muslim, Hindu, or Animist. Part of the confusion stems from Herndon, who seems to have been the sort of fellow who assumes that if you share an office, drink, or joke with him that you automatically share all his opinions about religion or politics. Herndon doesn't take the time to question, analyse, or try to understand beliefs that aren't his own.
And part comes from the fact that these neo-confederates don't really take categories and distinctions seriously. If they approve of someone's political point of view they will forgive any amount of doubt or heterodoxy. If they don't, they'll make all divergences of opinion or independence of mind into heresy. The idea seems to be to formulate an indictment in which every accusation made against Lincoln becomes another charge or count, rather than to come up with a picture of a complex human being that puts all his characteristics in place.
So much of this League of the South claptrap shouldn't be taken seriously. And indeed, on the eve of one of the most important elections of our lifetime, such third-rate Lincoln-bashing is pretty unconscionable. Those who are truly interested in Lincoln's religious beliefs will consult some of the fine serious works published in recent years by Allen Guelzo, Stewart Winger, Richard Carwardine, or Lucas Morel and not bother with all the stupid trash talk.
Mark Noll has a fine article on Lincoln and religion here: "The greatest difficulty in coming to a clearer picture of Lincoln's faith is the fact that his religion does not fit into modern categories. He was not an orthodox, evangelical, "born-again" Christian striving toward the "higher life" (as these terms have been used since the 1870s). But neither was he a skeptical "modernist" with a prejudice against the supernatural and an aversion to the Bible."
The question of what Lincoln believed is a complicated one. Why bother with those who don't want to give the matter serious thought or consideration? The difficulties involved in knowing or understanding anything of theology or history are such that there's little point in wasting one's time on fanatics, sophists, and propagandists.
Agent, sympathizer, confederate - whatever you want to call him. The fact of the matter, though, is that you have made your charge without any substantiation. You also repeat your slander against Judge Merrick ad nauseum in spite of the fact that you have yet to substantiate it. As I noted previously, it's time for you to either put up or shut up.
Unlike your group, such as nolu coward, I can back up my statements. Refer to the Official Records of the War of the Rebellion, Volume II. The section is "Suspected and Disloyal Persons" and begins on page 1021.
There is nothing in that exchange that even remotely supports your claims. There is even a letter on page 1022-23 in which Judge Merrick's loyalty is affirmed in repudiation of the fact that he was being detained! I am not certain of the family relationship of its author, though the last name suggests it is either his brother or a close relative.
Honorable WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State, Washington.SIR: The day after the announcement in The New York World that Judge Merrick, of the U. S. circuit court, was placed under arrest I wrote to him conjuring him to disprove all suspicions of rebel sympathies and to stand firm in the front rank of the nation. Last night I received his reply thanking me for my interest in his welfare and declaring that he had conscientiously discharged with fidelity his private duties and public trust and quoting for his comfort the sentiment of the pious Psalmist who said (37: 6):
And He shall bring forth thy ritghteousness as the light, and thy udgment as the noonday.
Judge Merrick imputes his arrest to false information without any accusation being communicated to him that he may meet and repel as it deserves. No one in this vicinity will accuse me of rebel sympathies or of lack of patriotism at this time when the nation calls all faithful sons to rally bravely for the welfare of the country and posterity. I trust Judge Merrick is true to the nation and Government, and as a friend both to the Administration and to him I very respectfully and earnestly ask that he may be released from arrest or at least and with out delay have the Roman privilege of meeting his accusers face to face with full opportunity to disprove false charges. The nation needs all its friends and noens hould be alienated who are willing and desirous to serve the country's cause.
Beleive me to be, sir, yours, very respectfully,
JAMES L. MERRICK.
Interestingly enough, what appears on the pages you quote is even more damning against the Lincoln administration as it proves that William Seward personally ordered the house arrest! Recall that at one time you were trying to claim that Lincoln was not involved to the degree that was suggested previously.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, October 21, 1861.
Brigadier General ANDREW PORTER, Provost-Marshal, Washington.GENERAL: You are didrected to establish a strict military guard over the residence of William M. Merrick, assistant judge of the circuit court of the United States for the District of Columbia.
I am, general, your very obedient servant,
WILLIAM H. SEWARD.
There's also another letter that Seward sent (his hands, meaning Lincoln's hands as well, were all over this case) to the Treasury Department ordering them to suspend Merrick's salary - an instruction that Seward attributes directly to Lincoln! This, of course, is also in blatant violation of Article III, Section I of the Constitution, which states that judges "shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office"
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, October 21, 1861.ELISHA WHITTLESEY, Esq., First Comptroller of the Treasury.
SIR: I am instructed by the President to direct that until further orders no more moneys be paid from the treasury of the United States on account of the salary of William M. Merrick, assistant judge of the circuit court for the District of Columbia.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
WILLIAM H. SEWARD.
Neither you, nor the Lincoln administration, put up anything as the Official Record shows. Peruse it at length. It is very revealing in that no act, or failure to act, is described. Judge Merrick was never removed from the bench, and subsequently served in the U.S. Congress.
The official U.S. Senate records reveal that on December 13, 1855, President Franklin Pierce wrote "I nominate William M. Merrick, of the District of Columbia, to be assistant judge of the circuit court of the United States for the District of Columbia, in the place of James Dunlop." LINK The Senate record of December 14, 1855 shows "The Senate, by unanimous consent proceeded to consider the nomination of William M. Merrick; and Resolved, That the Senate advise and consent to his appointment, agreeably to the nomination." LINK
Judge Merrick served as assistant judge of the circuit court from 1854 until 1863 when the court was abolished. Merrick subsequently was elected to the United States Congress and served from March 4, 1871 to March 3, 1873.
LINK to DiLorenzo article at Lew Rockwell
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
Thomas J. DiLorenzo, Lincoln’s 'Great Crime': The Arrest Warrant for the Chief Justice
Biographical Directory of the United States Congress
MERRICK, William Matthew, (1818 - 1889)--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MERRICK, William Matthew, (son of William Duhurst Merrick), a Representative from Maryland; born near Faulkner, Charles County, Md., September 1, 1818; was graduated from Georgetown University, Washington, D.C., in 1831; studied law at the University of Virginia at Charlottesville; was admitted to the bar in Baltimore in 1839 and commenced practice in Frederick, Md., in 1844; deputy attorney general for Frederick County 1845-1850; moved to Washington, D.C., in 1854; associate justice of the United States Circuit Court for the District of Columbia 1854-1863; resumed the practice of law in Maryland; professor of law at Columbian College (now George Washington University), Washington, D.C., in 1866 and 1867; delegate to the State constitutional convention of 1867; member of the State house of delegates in 1870; elected as a Democrat to the Forty-second Congress (March 4, 1871-March 3, 1873); unsuccessful candidate for reelection in 1872 to the Forty-third Congress; resumed the practice of law; associate judge of the supreme court of the District of Columbia by appointment of President Cleveland 1885-1889; died in Washington, D.C., February 4, 1889; interment in Mount Olivet Cemetery.
William Matthews [Merrick], jurist, born in Charles county, Maryland, 1 September, 1818, received a liberal education, studied law, and was admitted to the bar of Baltimore in 1839. He settled in Frederick, Maryland, in 1844. and in 1845 was appointed deputy attorney-general for that county, serving five years. In 1854 he removed to Washington, D. C., and was appointed associate judge of the United States circuit court for the district of Columbia, serving until this court was abolished in 1863. He then retired to Maryland, where he practised law. In 1866-'7 he was senior professor of law in Columbian college, Georgetown. He was a member of the State constitutional convention of 1867, and was elected to the Maryland legislature in 1870. He was then chosen to congress as a Democrat, serving from 4 March, 1871, till 3 March, 1873. On 4 May, 1885, he was appointed associate justice of the supreme court of the District of Columbia, and is now (1888) professor of law in the Georgetown university, D. C.
OFFICIAL RECORDS: Series 2, vol 2, Part 1 (Prisoners of War)
Page 1021 SUSPECTED AND DISLOYAL PERSONS.
Military Surveillance of Judge William M. Merrick.Judge Merrick, assistant judge of the U. S. court in the District of Columbeia, was placed under military surveillance by order of the Secretary of State October 21, 1861, having a guard placed about his residence. He was charged with interfering with the officers of the U. S. Army while in the discharge of their duties in enforcing the rules and regulations established in Washington for the preservation of the Government. The surveillance was removed a few days after it had been established. -- From Record Book, State Department, "Arrests for Disloyalty."
OFFICIAL RECORDS: Series 2, vol 2, Part 1 (Prisoners of War)
Page 1021 SUSPECTED AND DISLOYAL PERSONS.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, October 21, 1861.Brigadier General ANDREW PORTER, Provost-Marshal, Washington.
GENERAL: You are directed to establish a strict military guard over the residence of William M. Merrick, assistant judge of the circuit court of the United States for the District of Columbia.
I am, general, your very obedient servant,
WILLIAM H. SEWARD.
OFFICIAL RECORDS: Series 2, vol 2, Part 1 (Prisoners of War)
Page 1022 PRISONERS OF WAR, ETC.
HDQRS. CITY GUARD, PROVOST-MARSHAL'S OFFICE, Washington, D. C., October 21, 1861.Honorable WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.
SIR: In the order requiring a military guard to be placed over the residence of Judge Merrick is it desired by the honorable Secretary that the judge should be confined to his house?
I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
A. PORTER,
Brigadier-General and Provost-Marshal.
OFFICIAL RECORDS: Series 2, vol 2, Part 1 (Prisoners of War)
Page 1022 PRISONERS OF WAR, ETC.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, October 21, 1861.Brigadier General ANDREW PORTER, Provost-Marshal, Washington.
GENERAL: In answer to your note of this date I have to say that it is not expected that Judge Merrick will be confined to his house. Indeed it may be sufficient to make him understand that at a juncture like this when the public enemy is as it were at the gates of the capital the public safety is deemed to require that his correspondence and proceedings should be observed.
I am, general, your very obedient servant,
WILLIAM H. SEWARD.
OFFICIAL RECORDS: Series 2, vol 2, Part 1 (Prisoners of War)
Page 1022 PRISONERS OF WAR, ETC.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, October 21, 1861.ELISHA WHITTLESEY, Esq., First Comptroller of the Treasury.
SIR: I am instructed by the President to direct that until further orders no more moneys be paid from the treasury of the United States on account of the salary of William M. Merrick, assistant judge of the circuit court for the District of Columbia.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
WILLIAM H. SEWARD.
OFFICIAL RECORDS: Series 2, vol 2, Part 1 (Prisoners of War)
Page 1022 PRISONERS OF WAR, ETC.
SOUTH AMHERST, MASS., October 30, 1861.Honorable WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State, Washington.
SIR: The day after the announcement in The New York World that Judge Merrick, of the U. S. circuit court, was placed under arrest I wrote to him conjuring him to disprove all suspicions of rebel sympathies and to stand firm in the front rank of the nation. Last night I received his reply thanking me for my interest in his welfare and declaring that he had conscientiously discharged with fidelity his private duties and public trust and quoting for his comfort the sentiment of the pious Psalmist who said (37: 6):
And He shall bring forth thy righteousness as the light, and thy judgment as the noonday.
Judge Merrick imputes his arrest to false information without any accusation being communicated to him that he may meet and repel as it deserves. No one in this vicinity will accuse me of rebel sympathies or of lack of patriotism at this time when the nation calls all faithful sons to rally bravely for the welfare of the country and posterity. I trust Judge Merrick is true to the nation and Government, and as a friend both to the Administration and to him I very respectfully and earnestly ask that he may be released from arrest or at least and with
OFFICIAL RECORDS: Series 2, vol 2, Part 1 (Prisoners of War)
Page 1023 SUSPECTED AND DISLOYAL PERSONS.
out delay have the Roman privilege of meeting his accusers face to face with full opportunity to disprove false charges. The nation needs all its friends and none should be alienated who are willing and desirous to serve the country's cause.Believe me to be, sir, yours, very respectfully,
JAMES L. MERRICK.
Your logic is, as always, circular as the Constitution gives the suspension power to Congress. Since Congress had not properly affected a suspension it stands to reason that the writ could not have been in suspense, meaning that the Judicial Act of 1789 was still in place.
No judge, federal or local, was empowered to enforce the writ where it was suspended.
Even if that were the case in 1861 - and it was not - the fact still remains that in neither Taney's case nor Merrick's case was the writ ever publicly suspended until AFTER the arrest was made. The Merryman suspension was drafted up and sent to Taney from Lincoln's command in Annapolis AFTER Taney issued a writ to Gen Cadwalader. Similarly, as court records show, Merrick issued a writ to Murphy before Lincoln ordered its suspension in the District of Columbia and then never even bothered to inform the court of that until they were hearing the case.
Lincoln's religious beliefs weren't so very different from Washington's, and Washington has also been criticized for being unwilling to make much mention of Jesus Christ in his writings and utterances.
While it is true that Washington was not particularly known for his public expression of religion and may have bordered on more formalized forms of deism at times in his life, what we do know about his practice is indeed substantially different from Lincoln. Whereas Lincoln never belonged to any formal church and never professed any affiliation with Christianity, Washington was a practicing High Episcopalian. He was a vestryman in Fairfax Parish at the Falls Church for several years and was appointed Church Warden in 1763 with the task of contracting the construction of a new chapel. After the parish split in the 1760's he again served as an Episcopal vestryman in the new Truro Parish, encompassing Mount Vernon. What is known of Washington's concept of god indicates that his God was the God of Abraham, as he wrote, even in some of his more "deist-like" letters. Lincoln, by contrast, tended not to identify his concept of god with the judeo-christian one.
Any criticism of Lincoln as unorthodox also applies to many or most of the leading lights of America's founding generation.
You are simply incorrect about that. While it has been said that Jefferson's religion is a great mystery (the common quote is that Jefferson's beliefs are "known only to himself and God") and a few others dabbed in unitarianism (i.e. Adams) and deism, the overwhelming majority of them were practicing members of an organized denomination. Of the signers of the Declaration of Independence the only persons without a mainstream Christian religious affiliation were Jefferson, as previously mentioned, Franklin - a deist, and unitarian Adams. Just about everybody else fell into one of five different mainstream denominations: episcopalian, presbyterian, congregationalist, baptist, or roman catholic.
No it doesn't. It only states under what circumstances a suspension is permissible.
The Merryman suspension was drafted up and sent to Taney from Lincoln's command in Annapolis AFTER Taney issued a writ to Gen Cadwalader.
Lincoln's initial authorization to suspend the writ was dated April 27, 1861. Merryman was arrested on May 25. In any case, as soon as Taney was made aware that the writ was suspended, his duty was to comply.
Why do you use a member of your cabal as a credible source for your information?
Hey it works Dave.....the author is a professional fudgepackin turdburgler trying to drag (queen) history down a hole of his own desires according to google......:o)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=Doug+Ireland+homosexual+lesbian&btnG=Search
Stay Safe !
How many times must you be shown the text of the constitution itself before you take the time to read it, capitan?
"Article. I. Section 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
The suspension power is granted in Article I, is it not? That means that Section I of Article I governs its application.
Lincoln's initial authorization to suspend the writ was dated April 27, 1861.
Yeah, and he made no effort to inform the courts of it.
In any case, as soon as Taney was made aware that the writ was suspended, his duty was to comply.
Why? The judicial branch has no "duty" to abide by an unconstitutional action of the executive branch. As far as Taney's powers were concerned the Judicial Act of 1789 was still in place, and as long as that act was in place he had the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus.
LOL!
Why do you slander Dr. DiLorenzo with ad hominems and unfounded dismissals every single time he raises an unflattering fact about Lincoln that you cannot refute on its own merits?
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.
