[nolu chan]

[GOPcap] Source?

[cr] Chief Justice William Rehnquist, All the Laws But One, pg 35, quoting the New York Times of 29 May 1861.

SOURCE: William H. Rehnquist, All the Laws But One, pp. 34-5.

One may readily observe that, in quoting the New York Times of May 29, 1861 and several other newspapers, Rehnquist EXPLICITLY states that, NORTHERN OPINION, as might have been expected, was critical of Taney's decision.

EXPLICITLY, Rehnquist was demonstrating NORTHERN OPINION at the time.

Moreover, by May 29, 1861, the Taney opinion being reported upon by newspapers had obviously already been issued.

Northern opinion, as might have been expected, was critical of Taney's decision. The Washington Evening Star opined in its issue of May 29:

The action of Chief Justice Taney in this case is probably in accordance with the strict letter of the law.... Nevertheless, it exhibits a determination on his part palpably to ignore the existing state of the country, which signally justified the action of General Cadwalader with respect to Merriman [sic] -- an individual whose conduct has proved him to be eminently dangerous to the cause of the maintenance of the Union.... Under these circumstances, there can be no doubt that public opinion will justify the refusal of General Cadwalader, in times like these, to deny to a man notoriously striving to overthrow the Constitution, Union and Government of the United States, the advantage of the writ of habeas corpus.

The New York Times in its issue of the same day said:

In the case of John Merriman [sic], the interposition of Chief Justice Taney can only be regarded as at once officious and improper.... Judge Taney presents the ungracious specta­cle of a judicial and the military authority of the United States at variance, the soldier eager to punish, and the jurist to excul­pate a traitor. The antithesis might have been very easily avoided; and an impression that the zeal of the Justice might have been less fervent, had not the prisoner been a citizen of his own State, a neighbor, and a personal friend, would not have countenanced.

The Baltimore Daily Republican was more sympathetic, in its May 28 issue, giving this report of the proceedings which had taken place that morning:

Shortly before the hour named, the doors of the courtroom were thrown open, when the crowd, which by this time had increased to several hundred, rushed in pell mell, until the room had become densely packed to such an extent as to ren­der it exceedingly uncomfortable. Every nook and corner was occupied, and a general scrambling for positions progressed for some time, large numbers being unable to effect an entrance into the room

The decision of the venerable Chief Justice was received by those assembled, many of whom were members of the bar, with heartfelt exclamations of approbation, such as "Thank God for such a man," "God grant that he may live many years to protect us," and many similar remarks.

[GOPcapitalist]

Thank you for documenting this. Why am I not surprised to learn of it?

So once again we have another case of fraud perpetrated by El Capitan to artificially bolster his case. This guy abuses his own chosen sources almost as much as he abuses Supreme Court decisions by appending extraneous material to their rulings!

[lentulusgracchus]

nc, are your block quotes in this post quoting Rehnquist's book? Or are you quoting these newspapers yourself? I'm not sure what I'm looking at here.

That said, it would certainly appear that the article in question -- from your quotation of it -- has prejudged Merryman on political grounds, and based its opinion of Taney's action on what The New York Times thinks would be a better outcome (Merryman stays in prison, evidently on any pretext, evidently without any sort of relief regardless of its legality). Of course, Taney couldn't base his actions on lifting the blindfold of justice to say -- "oh, I'm sorry, I had mistaken you for an honest person", and then throwing him back in prison for 99 years.

As someone else had suggested, if Lincoln thought there was a problem with people opposed to his war politically being allowed to run around free as if they were real people, he should have called the Congress back into session to deal with his "emergency" war measures on that basis.

He obviously didn't want Congress involved, because he apparently didn't take up the subject of suspending the writ with Congress for nearly two years -- or is that incorrect?