In defense of his Confederate pride

St Petersburg Times ^ | October 7, 2007 | Stephanie Garry

[4CJ]

Except that Taney issued his ruling from the circuit court bench.

1. The petition by George H. Williams and George M. Gill for a writ of habeas corpus regarding John Merryman was addressed to the 'Chief Justice of the Supreme Court'.

2. The petition was not delivered to Taney at 55 Franklin Street in Baltimore, nor to Taney at the Circuit Court building in Baltimore. It was delivered to Chief Justice Taney at 23 Blagden's Row in Washington.

3. Taney notes in the decision that the 'petition was presented to me at Washington under the impression that I would order the prisoner to be brought before me there'.

4. His orders to Thomas Spicer (Clerk of the Supreme Court as well as Taney's Maryland Circuit) was to command General Cadwalader to appear 'before me, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States', not before a Circuit court. The Baltimore Sun noted in the 27 May 1861 edition that, "Judge Taney issued the writ in his capacity as chief judge of the Supreme Court of the United States."

5. Taney changed venue from Washington to Baltimore, since Merryman 'was confined in Fort McHenry, at the city of Baltimore', so that the appearance with Merryman 'would not withdraw General Cadwalader, who had him in charge, from the limits of his military command.' The location changed, but not the court hearing the petition.

6. Thomas Spicer's summons to Gen. Cadwalader ordered him to appear before 'the Honorable ROGER B. TANEY, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, at the United States Court Room.'

7. Gen. Cadwalader's return was to 'the HON. ROGER B. TANEY, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.' The New York Times under date on 29 May 1861 noted that, 'the United States Marshall made his return to the writ of habeas corpus issued by Chief Justice Taney.'

8. In Baltimore, Taney confers with 4^th Circuit Court Judge William Fell Giles. Judge Giles had previously issued a writ under date of 4 May 1861 to Major William Walton Morris, commanding at Fort McHenry, ordering him to produce before the court one John George Mullen. Major Morris refused, rendering the Circuit Court impotent. Obviously, Taney would ensure that the military authorities in this case were aware that it was heard by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and not by the 4^th Circuit court. This point was noted by the Baltimore Sun 29 May 1861 edition:

   Chief Justice Taney, upon taking his seat on the bench, said that he desired to state that his associate, Judge Giles, of the Circuit Court, was present with him yesterday by his invitation, because he desired to avail himself of his counsel and advice in so important a case. The writ of habeas corpus was ordered by him as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, consequently Judge Giles could not act with him in the case

9. Taney orders an attachment for Gen. Cadwalader, which is served by U.S. Marshal Washington Bonifant. Bonifant's return is addressed to 'the Honorable ROGER B. TANEY, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.'

10. Taney issues his opinion 1 Jun 1861, and notes the case was 'Before the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, at Chambers', not before a Circuit judge. It is such in Taney's handwritten copy of the decision, the officially published version, as well as what was published in the newspapers of the day, including the Baltimore Sun on 3 Jun 1861, New York Times on 4 Jun 1861, as well as in Habeas Corpus: The Proceedings In The Case Of John Merryman Of Baltimore County, Maryland, Before The Hon. Roger Brooke Taney, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Baltimore, MD: Lucas Bros, (1861), p. 9.

11. Taney writes in his opinion that Gen. Cadwalader refused a habeas corpus 'served on the commanding officer, requiring him to produce the prisoner before a Justice of the Supreme Court', not before a Circuit judge.

12. Fearing his own imminent arrest, Taney directed 'the proceedings in this case, with my opinion, to be filed and recorded in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Maryland, and direct the Clerk to transmit a copy, under seal, to the President of the United States.' An order to Spicer would NOT have been necessary if the proceedings were conducted in the 4^th Circuit Court.

13. The case is delivered and signed by Taney as 'Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States'. Documented also by Taney's former Supreme Court associate Justice Curtis in A Memoir of Benjamin Robbins Curtis, LL.D., Boston MA: Little, Brown and Company (1879), Vol. I, p. 460. Of all the people that could have raised issue with the wording it would have been by Justice Curtis, but it seems that Curtis agrees with the Chief Justice.

More on the arrest warrant later.

[Non-Sequitur]

Your vivid imagination knows no limits. Read Taney's account again. Link and Link.

. "In such a case my duty was too plain to be mistaken. I have exercised all the power which the Constitution and laws confer on me, but that power has been resisted by a force too strong for me to overcome. It is possible that the officer who has incurred this grave responsibility may have misunderstood his instructions, and exceeded the authority intended to be given him. I shall, therefore, order all the proceedings in this case, with my opinion, to be filed and recorded in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Maryland, and direct the clerk to transmit a copy, under seal, to the President of the United States."

"'In the matter of the petition of John Merryman, for a writ of habeas corpus: Ordered, this 26th day of May, A. D. 1861, that the writ of habeas corpus issue in this case, as prayed, and that the same be directed to General George Cadwalader, and be issued in the usual form, by Thomas Spicer, clerk of the circuit court of the United States in and for the district of Maryland, and that the said writ of habeas corpus be returnable at eleven o'clock, on Monday, the 27th of May 1861, at the circuit court room, in the Masonic Hall, in the city of Baltimore, before me, chief justice of the supreme court of United States. R. B. Taney.'"

and

"'I ordered this attachment yesterday, because, upon the face of the return, the detention of the prisoner was unlawful, upon the grounds: 1. That the president, under the constitution of the United States, cannot suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, nor authorize a military officer to do it. 2. A military officer has no right to arrest and detain a person not subject to the rules and articles of war, for an offence 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. It is, therefore, very clear that John Merryman, the petitioner, is entitled to be set at liberty and discharged immediately from imprisonment. I forbore yesterday to state orally the provisions of the consitution of the United States, which make those principles the fundamental law of the Union, because an oral statement might be misunderstood in some portions of it, and I shall therefore put my opinion in writing, and file it in the office of the clerk of the circuit court, in the course of this week.' "

Chief Justice Taney was aware that it was a circuit court case, even if you are not.

More on the arrest warrant later.

I can hardly wait. But let me guess. You will present a quote from Taney saying he feared he would be arrested. You will present quotes from two men who say that Taney told them he expected to be arrested. You will say the Ward Lamon said that such a warrant was sworn out. What you will not be able produce is evidence that such a warrant existed or any accounts from Lincoln or any cabinet member involved in the discussions. In short, nothing but hearsay and the paranoid ramblings of an old man. An old man, by the way, who never spent a day in jail.

[4CJ]

Your vivid imagination knows no limits. Read Taney's account again. Link and Link.

So what's your beef? Your first link strips Taney's offical heading, and replaces it with 'TANEY, Circuit Justice', and omits his signature.

Your second link notes that the case is properly headed, 'Before the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, at Chambers', and includes Taney's official signature line of 'Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States'.

American State Trials, Vol IX (1918), has Taney's official heading while omitting the signature. It also states that the trial was 'In the Supreme Court of The United States, Baltimore, Maryland, May, 1861', presided over by the 'Hon. Roger B. Taney, Chief Justice'.

Mayor Brown's book has both matching Taney's account. Matching Taney's account in the Baltimore Sun on 3 Jun 1861, the New York Times on 4 Jun 1861, as well as in Habeas Corpus: The Proceedings In The Case Of John Merryman Of Baltimore County, Maryland, Before The Hon. Roger Brooke Taney, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Baltimore, MD: Lucas Bros, (1861)

The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation Of the Official Records Of the Union and Confederate Armies, Series II, Vol. I, Additions and Corrections, pp. 577-585, has both correct, matching Taney's handwritten account.

Hmmm, whom to believe, Justice Taney, The Official Records, major newspapers of the day, or a modern website?

I'll stick with Taney. Bizzaro MBA's must not be what they used to be.

"In such a case ... the proceedings in this case, with my opinion, to be filed and recorded in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Maryland, and direct the clerk to transmit a copy, under seal, to the President of the United States."

I wrote that Taney directed that 'the proceedings in this case, with my opinion, to be filed and recorded in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Maryland, and direct the Clerk to transmit a copy, under seal, to the President of the United States.' Verbatim duplicate. Taney directed Spicer to file in Circuit court, a move unneccessary if it was a Circuit court case.

Bizzaro MBA's must not be what they used to be.

'In the matter of the petition ... before me, chief justice of the supreme court of United States. R. B. Taney.'"

Ditto from above. Before Taney, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Bizzaro MBA's must not be what they used to be.

Ditto on the third as well.

Chief Justice Taney was aware that it was a circuit court case, even if you are not.

Petition to Taney as Chief Justice; delivered to him in Washington [NOTE: for the terminally obtuse, the Circuit Court was in Baltimore];
with the understanding the case would be heard in Washington [NOTE: for the terminally obtuse, the Supreme Court is located in Washington];
Writ orders Gen. Cadwalder to have John Merryman before the 'Chief Justice of the Supreme Court' [NOTE: for the terminally obtuse, the the Supreme Court is NOT the Circuit Court];
a change of VENUE to prevent removing Cadwalader 'from the limits of his military command' [NOTE: for the terminally obtuse, a change of venue does not change the court];
Taney summoned Cadwalader to appear before the 'Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, at the United States Court Room.' [NOTE: for the terminally obtuse, a change of venue does not change the court];
... ad naseum

Bizzaro MBA's ain't what they used to be.

[Non-Sequitur]

Bizzaro MBA's ain't what they used to be.

Nor is what passes for education in the Southern states. If Ex Parte Merryman was a Supreme Court case then how did the other justices vote?

[4CJ]

If Ex Parte Merryman was a Supreme Court case then how did the other justices vote?

Sorry that your Bizzaro MBA leaves you clueless to the American Court system. Justice Marshall noted it above,

It may now be proper to notice the opinion of the supreme court in the case of the United States against Bollman and Swartwout. ... But it is to be remembered, that the judges might act separately, and perhaps, at the same time, on the various prosecutions which might be instituted, and that no appeal lay from their decisions.'

[NOTE: for the terminally obtuse, there could be no appeal, the individual justice was the Supreme Court in such cases]. Noted again by Chief Justice Taney in ex parte Merryman,

The application in this case for a writ of habeas corpus is made to me under the 14th section of the judiciary act of 1789 [1 Stat. 81], which renders effectual for the citizen the constitutional privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. That act gives to the courts of the United States, as well as to each justice of the supreme court, and to every district judge, power to grant writs of habeas corpus for the purpose of an inquiry into the cause of commitment.

[NOTE: for the terminally obtuse, individual justices of the Supreme Court could hear habeas corpus cases].

I'll take common sense over your Bizarro MBA any day - it leaves a lot to be desired.

[Non-Sequitur]

I'll take common sense over your Bizarro MBA any day - it leaves a lot to be desired.

Oh I'd say you're giving a whole new meaning to the term bizarro as it is. It's amazing how the entire American system of jurisprudence has been wrong all this time when it could have just asked you how things are really supposed to work.

And you're really hung up on this MBA thing, aren't you? Jealous?

[4CJ]

And you're really hung up on this MBA thing, aren't you? Jealous?

About as much as a 5 year old graduating from kindergarden. May you enjoy it with all the metaphysical glory it brings.

Taney knew Lincoln considered his arrest:

''But the chief Justice, with the weight of eighty-four years upon him, as he left the house of his son-in-law, Mr. Campbell, remarked that it was likely he should be imprisoned in Fort McHenry before night; but that he was going to court to do his duty.'
Samuel Tyler, Memoir of Roger Brooke Taney, LL.D: Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Baltimore MD: John Murphy & Co. (1872), p. 427]

As did Mayor Brown of Baltimore:

He [Taney] then told me that he knew his own imprisonment had been a matter of consultation, but the danger had passed, and he warned me from information he had received, that my time would come.
George William Brown, Baltimore and the Nineteenth of April, 1861: A Study of War, John Hopkins University, (1887) p. 90.

Taney was correct, Mayor Brown was arrested several months later on 12 Sep 1861. Former Supreme Court Justice Benjamin R. Curtis, no friend of Taney, knew of Lincoln's threatened arrest of the Chief Justice :

If he [Taney] had never done anything else that was high, heroic, and important, his noble vindication of the writ of habeas corpus and the dignity and authority of his office against the rash minister of State who, in the pride of a fancied executive power, came near to the commission of a great crime, will command the admiration and gratitude of every lover of constitutional liberty so long as our institutions endure.
Benjamin R. Curtis, Jr., ed., A Memoir of Benjamin Robbins Curtis, LL.D., Boston MA: Little, Brown and Company (1879), Vol. I, p. 240

Baltimore Mayor and Chief Judge George W. Brown noted that the 'crime referred to was the intended imprisonment of the Chief Justice.' [Baltimore and the Nineteenth of April, 1861: A Study of War, John Hopkins University, (1887) p. 90.].

And again, former Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Curtis, an avowed unionist, nevertheless slammed President Lincoln in Executive Power for his unconstitutional actions, also hinting at Lincoln's illegal act:

[C]oncerning the implied powers of the President as commander-in-chief in time of war, if the President shall be of opinion that the arrest and incarceration, and trial before a military commission, of a judge of the United States, for some judicial decision, or of one or more members of either House of Congress for words spoken in debate, ... [t]his power is certainly not found in any express grant of power made by the Constitution to the President, nor even in any delegation of power made by the Constitution of the United States to any department of the Government.
Benjamin R. Curtis, Executive Power, Boston MA: Little, Brown and Company (1862), pp. 20-21

Senator Polk of Missouri referring to Taney's actions stated:

I honor him for the brave and courageous discharge of his duty under the circumstances in which he was placed. He was in the midst of civil tumult; he was surrounded by soldiers, and by arms.
US Sen. Trusten Polk (MO), The Congressional Globe, 37th Congress, 1st Sess., 10 Jul 1861, p. 48

There's nothing courageous about issuing a decision, but there is when one faces the possibility of arrest, especially for having the temerity to stand up to a potential dictator. From federal Marshal Ward H. Lamon:

According to Marshal Lamon, “after due consideration the administration determined upon the arrest of the Chief Justice.” Lincoln issued a presidential arrest warrant for Taney, but “then arose the question of service.” Who should make the arrest, and where should Taney be imprisoned? "It was finally determined," Lamon remembered, "to place the order of arrest in the hands of the United States Marshal for the District of Columbia.” Lincoln himself handed the warrant to his friend, instructing the marshal to “use his own discretion about making the arrest unless he should receive further orders.” Lamon, availing himself of this discretionary power, decided not to arrest Chief Justice Taney.
Frederick S. Calhoun, The Lawmen: United States Marshals and their Deputies, 1789-1989, Washington DC: Smithsonian Institute Press (1989), p. 103

Lamon might have held off serving the warrant due to his respect for the Chief Justice, as documented by Tyler:

Chief Justice Taney was the greatest and best man I ever saw. I never went into his presence on business that his gracious courtesy and kind consideration did not make me feel that I was a better man for being in his presence.
Samuel Tyler, Memoir of Roger Brooke Taney, LL.D: Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Baltimore MD: John Murphy & Co. (1872), p. 448]

A Confederate Senator documents that Taney was threated:

When the war came, Taney was not deterred by clamor, nor by flaming swords, nor by the insolence of power, nor by threats, from the performance of his official duty.
Thomas Jenkins Semmes, 'The Chief Justices', Modern Eloquence, Philadelphia PA: John D. Morris & Company, Vol. IX, (1900), p.1038.

Emmanuel Hertz goes into detail about the whitewashing of Lamon's book:

The book was nearly ready for publication and Lamon had submitted the page proofs to [Leonard] Swett and [Justice David] Davis for their criticism. ... They (S. and D.) were horrified. They got Lamon into a room, locked the door, and kept him there nearly a whole afternoon, trying to force him to take that chapter out of the book, and they succeeded after great difficulty. Swett did not tell me what proofs Lamon advanced to support his statement but he said that they were prima facie strong."
Emmanuel Hertz, The Hidden Lincoln: From The Letters and Papers of William H. Herndon, New York NY: Blue Ribbon Books (1940), p. 8

Hertz then documents the same whitewashing by Lincoln's secretaries, 'Nicolay and Hay have suppressed many facts', and that they 'are writing the Life of Lincoln under the surveillance of Bob Lincoln.' They were, 'afraid of Bob. He gives them materials and they in turn play hush..' [Ibid, p.15] Hertz continues, stating that Hay omitted 'anything Robert desired left unsaid. Both Hay and Nicolay, Lincoln's other secretary and hero-worshiper, admit to writing to please Robert.' [Ibid, p.16].

Hertz continues, documenting Robert Lincoln's efforts to prevent Sen. Beveridge from obtaining certain Lincoln documents, causing Robert to donate them 'to the Library of Congress, on condition that they were not to be opened or seen by anyone without his consent or the consent of his wife, in writing, until twenty-one years after his death. ... But before presenting them to the Library of Congress, Lincoln subjected the papers to a purge.' Horace G. Young visited Robert, and found 'he found Mr. Lincoln in a room surrounded by a number of large boxes and with many papers scattered about the floor, and with the ashes of many burnt papers visible in the fireplace. Mr. Young asked Mr. Lincoln what he was doing, and Mr. Lincoln replied that he was destroying some of the private papers and letters of his father, Abraham Lincoln.' [Ibid, pp.17-18].

The diary of US Senator Orville H. Browning was 'edited and printed only on condition that certain sections and entries be omitted. They were omitted.' [Ibid, p.18].

So it went. McClure's papers on Lincoln were destroyed by General McCausland; Robert Levi Todd, one of Lincoln's intimate associates, left his papers to Todd Gentry, who destroyed them. Lincoln's enemies in the South destroyed many documents, as did collectors who were interested in saving only Lincoln's signature. Even the elements joined in the destruction, the Chicago fire having been responsible for the loss of much significant material. [Ibid, p.19]

I wonder how many items detrimental to Lincoln Robert or another purged. The reviews of the books/statements regarding Lincoln's warrant for Taney's arrest do not indicate any surprise or doubt about the statements, and we know that Robert Lincoln purged documents.

Regardless, one of Lincoln's closet friends and confidants – Ward Lamon – testifies to the issuance of the arrest warrant by Lincoln. A sitting US Senator refers to Taney's courageous act, as does a former Confederate Senator. The Chief Justice knew of it, Justice Benjamin R. Curtis knew of it, Mayor Brown knew of it, US Marshal Frederick S. Calhoun writes of it – and yet never disputes it.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

But let me guess. You will present a quote from Taney saying he feared he would be arrested. You will present quotes from two men who say that Taney told them he expected to be arrested. You will say the Ward Lamon said that such a warrant was sworn out. What you will not be able produce is evidence that such a warrant existed or any accounts from Lincoln or any cabinet member involved in the discussions. In short, nothing but hearsay and the paranoid ramblings of an old man.

How do you do that?

[Non-Sequitur]

About as much as a 5 year old graduating from kindergarden. May you enjoy it with all the metaphysical glory it brings.

I wouldn't expect a 5 year old to harp on not getting a pony as much as you harp on your lack of an MBA. Must be touching a nerve there somewhere. And it shouldn't really. It's nice to have and I'm glad I got it from the school I got it from. But I can honestly say that of all the many reasons you've given me over the years for doubting your intelligence, a lack of an MBA from a top tier school isn't one of them. And it has never been one of the reasons why I think as little of your opinions as I do.

Regardless, one of Lincoln's closet friends and confidants – Ward Lamon – testifies to the issuance of the arrest warrant by Lincoln. A sitting US Senator refers to Taney's courageous act, as does a former Confederate Senator. The Chief Justice knew of it, Justice Benjamin R. Curtis knew of it, Mayor Brown knew of it, US Marshal Frederick S. Calhoun writes of it – and yet never disputes it.

I will admit that one of the things an MBA course of study does do is teach one to look at things with a critical eye. Now For the most part what you posted is hearsay. Taney telling others that he expected to be arrested, but never giving a reason for his paranoid suspicions. In the first case, the narrative makes it clear that Taney expected to be arrested before he issued his Ex Parte Merryman decision.

Now look at the Lamon account. Chuckie Adams has written columns on it and according to him:

"Taney’s opinion seriously embarrassed Lincoln and his advisers. Southern sympathizers and Northern opponents of the war praised Taney as a partisan of civil liberties standing alone against military tyranny. Taney’s opinion exacerbated the delicate situation in Maryland, a border state yet undecided in its commitment to the Union. According to Marshal Lamon, "After due consideration the administration determined upon the arrest of the Chief Justice." Lincoln issued a presidential arrest warrant for Taney, but then arose the question of service. "Who should make the arrest and should Taney be imprisoned?""

It was finally determined to place the order of arrest in the hands of the United States Marshal for the District of Columbia. Laman then recalls that "Lincoln gave the warrant to him, instructing Lamon to "use his own discretion about making the arrest unless he should receive further orders.""

That makes it clear that according to Lamon discussions on arresting Taney took place after the Merryman decision was made. So if Taney was told to expect an arrest it wasn't from Lamon. It also makes it clear that other people besides Lincoln and Lamon were involved in the discussions. Yet no other accounts have ever been found. No warrant has ever been found. No hard evidence of any kind has been found. And if Taney's paranoia had any source, it wasn't from within the adminsitration or anyone Lamon believes was involved. So once again you take 1 plus 1 and come up with blue. Southron myth, which you repeat often enough in the hopes it becomes accepted as fact. Sorry, but I won't play along.

And the final fact that counts against this whole Taney arrest fairytale is the fact that not a single biographer of Taney has ever found enough evidence to include it in any of their books on the man. Not one.

[stand watie]

because the rector of St John's said so. that's why.(unlike you, the rector is NOT a serial liar, a BIGOT and/or a fool.)

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

laughing AT you.

PITY that you don't know how the brighter members of this forum see you.

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

as you & i have discussed several times, QUANTRELL is the name on the family Bible & on the flag that he ordered.

even a south-HATER like you should understand that the family/COL Quantrell knows how to spell their/his own name.

free dixie,sw

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

because the rector of St John's said so. that's why.(unlike you, the rector is NOT a serial liar, a BIGOT and/or a fool.)

Really? What did he say? That Quantrill was baptized in his church, and you just assumed that he was born there? That his birth certificate is "on file" with the apparently non-existent New York City Department of Statistics (or "Stastics")? That he was born in Queens? That he was born in Brooklyn? Because you've said all of those on different threads.

Say, this rector wasn't an admiral or a commodore, was he?

[stand watie]

in other words, you don't care that you are KNOWN to be a FOOL, SERIAL LIAR,NITWIT & BIGOT by everyone, who reads your DISHONEST/ignorant/hate-FILLED, DY, nonsense????

btw, tell us WHO you "used to be" before you were BANNED FOREVER from the forum "for cause". (be sure & provide independent PROOF, as nobody here is IGNORANT/naive enough to believe you on ANY subject.)

laughing AT you.

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

in other words, you are just a HATER, a LIAR & a FOOL???

be sure & tell everyone about the clumsy/stupid CRIMINAL FRAUD you ADMITTED committing while trying (unsuccessfully i might add) to win an argument on a WBTS thread. that should "really improve" your REPUTATION.(though truthfully, your reputation could NOT be worse.)

be sure to provide INDEPENDENT PROOF, as NOTHING you post is otherwise believed by anybody on the forum.

laughing AT you, BIGOT/LIAR.

free dixie,sw

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

even a south-HATER like you should understand that the family/COL Quantrell knows how to spell their/his own name.

Yeah, you would think so, and that's why every extant version of his signature is "W.C. Quantrill." Care to explain that?

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

"did i say that COL Quantrell was BORN in NYC??? (i did NOT.):--Stand Watie, 10.13.07

"William Clarke Quantrell was born in New York City"--Stand Watie, 6.29.00

"New York City's Dept. of Stastics has W.C. Quantrell's origional birth certificate on file. It states that Colonel Quantrell was born in Queens." --Stand Watie, 6.29.00

"Colonel Quantrell (the proper spelling of his name, per his official NY state birth certificate"--Stand Watie, 2.22.01

"Our own Colonel William C. Quantrell, born in NYC" --Stand Watie, 7.9.00

"FYI, the colonel's actual name was COL(MO State Troops, not PA,CSA!)William Clarke QUANTRELL. he was born & died bearing that name, per both his birth certificate (from Brooklyn,NY!) and his death certificate."--Stand Watie, 3.31.01

"actually, i have said that COL Quantrell was BAPTIZED in NYC & that i had always PRESUMED that he was also born there."--Stand Watie, 10.15.07

[Non-Sequitur]

even a south-HATER like you should understand that the family/COL Quantrell knows how to spell their/his own name.

Then in whatever corner of hell he's currently residing, he must be ashamed of the fact that it's spelled Quantrill on his tombstone. I would have assumed that the family would have known how to spell it correctly.

[stand watie]

don't you get tired of being LAUGHED AT & thought a FOOL, a SERIAL LIAR & a BIGOT???

that IS your reputation on FR.

WHEN are you going to provide PROOF of who you used to be before being BANNED from FR??? (don't have the GUTS to do that, do you, creep???)

laughing AT you.

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

laughing AT you, LIAR/FOOL/BIGOT.

i've noticed that you don't have the GUTS to admit:

WHO you were before being BANNED forever from FR,

WHAT you did to get yourself banned AND

WHEN you are going to admit what you've become on this forum (the resident LIAR & BIGOT is the truthful answer)

free dixie,sw