Replies

"A military order to suspend habeas corpus could never be valid. There is no record of any oral order. The military tends to document such things."

How, then, did General Cadwalader know about the President's direction on the matter? It was either conveyed to him verbally or in writing - since it was not apparently broadcast through the newspapers. He didn't just make it up.

"The Official Record proves beyond a doubt and to a moral certainty that GENERAL CADWALLADER had not been authorized to suspend habeas corpus prior to May 28, 1861."

The lack of documentation in the record does not prove than none had existed, or that the authorization had not been made. It is a nice story, though.

"As Chief Justice Taney patiently explained to the Great Usurper:

A military officer has no right to arrest and detain a person not subject to the rules and articles of war, for an offense against the laws of the United States, except in aid of the judicial authority, and subject to its control; and if the party be arrested by the military, it is the duty of the officer to deliver him over immediately to the civil authority, to be dealt with according to law."

Here Taney was factually mistaken. Merryman was an officer of a Maryland Militia unit engaged in sabotage.

"Then by now you should know that such authority could only be delegated to 'the officer in command at the point where resisistance occurs.'"

I believe the term is "the chain of custody." Lincoln seemed not to have a problem with Cadwalader's actions. The idea of suspending the privilege of the writ was so partisan judges like Taney could not spring their treasonable friends.

"As usual, you INVENT your NON-FACTS. What General Cadwallader had his aide read to Chief Justice Taney is a matter of official record and is not in dispute, except by the capitan_kerryfugio attempt to revise it."

You are quibbling about semantics. Cadwalader's message to Taney was clear enough to Taney. Taney knew exactly what Cadwalader meant, even if you don't.

"And, as one can readily observe, after the megalomaniacal fuhrer had delegated the authority to suspend habeas to his chief storm trooper, that officer delegated the authority to Brigadier-General Beast Butler, Major-General Patterson, and Colonel Mansfield. Major-General Patterson is identified as commanding the Department of Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland, not General Keim and not General Cadwalader."

Now that you have descended into delusional babble, I don't think any more of your post is worth a reply.

[capitan kerryfugio] How, then, did General Cadwalader know about the President's direction on the matter? It was either conveyed to him verbally or in writing - since it was not apparently broadcast through the newspapers. He didn't just make it up.

The directive to General Scott was a month old. It is to be expected that other generals could have been made aware of its existence.

[capitan_kerryfugio] The lack of documentation in the record does not prove than none had existed, or that the authorization had not been made. It is a nice story, though.

The PRESENCE of documention dated May 28, 1861 granting authorization IN RESPONSE TO A LETTER FROM GENERAL CADWALLADER provides PROOF that A PRIOR AUTHORIZATION DID NOT EXIST. Had it existed, it would have been presented to the court. It was not.

Assuming your phantom "authorization" existed, it was withheld from the court and has no legal significance to the case.

It remains that General Cadwallader was NOT the officer in command of the AREA and could not be delegated suspension authority, not even pursuant to the terms specified by the Great Usurper.

"As Chief Justice Taney patiently explained to the Great Usurper:

A military officer has no right to arrest and detain a person not subject to the rules and articles of war, for an offense against the laws of the United States, except in aid of the judicial authority, and subject to its control; and if the party be arrested by the military, it is the duty of the officer to deliver him over immediately to the civil authority, to be dealt with according to law.

[capitan_kerryfugio] Here Taney was factually mistaken. Merryman was an officer of a Maryland Militia unit engaged in sabotage.

As usual, you have your head firmly planted in your butt. Merryman was not subject to the articles of war. Did you have a war in Baltimore at that time?

An officer of the Maryland Militia acting under orders is not guilty of committing sabotage.

An officer of the Maryland Militia acting on his own, in his home state, not in uniform, is not subject to the laws of war.

The only attempt at litigation was in the CIVILIAN courts.

"Then by now you should know that such authority could only be delegated to 'the officer in command at the point where resisistance occurs.'"

[capitan_kerryfugio] I believe the term is "the chain of custody."

You idiot, "chain of custody" relates to evidence.

The authorization of the Great Usurper specifically and explicitly limited delegation authority.

You are engaged in repressing an insurrection against the laws of the United States. If at any point on or in the vicinity of the military line which is now used between the city of Philadelphia, via Perryville, Annapolis City, and Annapolis Junction, you find resistance which renders it necessary to suspend the writ of habeas corpus for the public safety, you personally, or through the officer in command at the point where resistance occurs, are authorized to suspend that writ.

It was unlawful for any military officer to exercise such authority, but Cadwallader could not even properly claim "apparent" authority.

[capitan_kerryfugio] Lincoln seemed not to have a problem with Cadwalader's actions.

The Great Usurper did not have a problem with committing serial rape of the Constitution.

[capitan_kerryfugio] You are quibbling about semantics. Cadwalader's message to Taney was clear enough to Taney. Taney knew exactly what Cadwalader meant, even if you don't.

Taney understood perfectly and explained it quite clearly to the Great Usurper:

These great and fundamental laws, which congress itself could not suspend, have been disregarded and suspended, like the writ of habeas corpus, by a military order, supported by force of arms. Such is the case now before me, and I can only say that if the authority which the constitution has confided to the judiciary department and judicial officers, may thus, upon any pretext or under any circumstances, be usurped by the military power, at its discretion, the people of the United States are no longer living under a government of laws, but every citizen holds life, liberty and property at the will and pleasure of the army officer in whose military district he may happen to be found.

[capitan_kerryfugio] Now that you have descended into delusional babble, I don't think any more of your post is worth a reply.

LINK
Page 337 Chapter LXIII. CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. - UNION.
HEADQUARTERS OF THE ARMY,
Washington, April 27, 1861.
The undersigned, General-in-Chief, of the Army, has received from the President of the United States the following communication:
COMMANDING GENERAL ARMY OF THE UNITED STATES:
You are engaged in repressing an insurrection against the laws of the United States. If at any point on or in the vicinity of the military line which is now used between the city of Philadelphia, via Perryville, Annapolis City, and Annapolis Junction, you find resistance which renders it necessary to suspend the writ of habeas corpus for the public safety, you personally, or through the officer in command at the point where resistance occurs, are authorized to suspend that writ.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

In accordance with the foregoing warrant, the undersigned devolves on Major-General Patterson, commanding the Department of Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland; Brigadier-General Butler, commanding the Department of Annapolis, and Colonel Mansfield, commanding the Washington Department, a like authority, each within the limits of his command to execute in all proper cases the instructions of the President.
WINFIELD SCOTT.