Lee's High Hopes for Maryland

[hawglips]

Originally Posted by unionblue

Hal,Your proof on the statement you give in post concerning the 'thousands' under arrest in Maryland, please.

Unionblue

You must be referring to my remark that "...I hear there were thousands of them..."

Now, are you insisting I prove that I have indeed heard what I said I heard, or are you insisting I prove that what I have heard is fact?

Since my statement went no further than "I heard", I think that should be a pretty clear indication to an objective reader that I was not staking any personal claim to the number. And surely you wouldn't hold my feet to the fire to prove to you what I have heard? That is an impossible demand.

If on the other hand you are asking me to prove that what I have merely heard from others is true, that doesn't seem completely reasonable to me.

But for the sake of dialogue, and in the spirit of allowing you to defend the tyrant and make your point, I must admit that I do find the rather broad number to be plausible. Any despot that would arrest state legislators to prevent their vote, and arrest local police boards, and newspaper editors, and US congressmen, and issue orders for the arrest of a chief supreme court justice, and shut down newspapers -- would very feasibly arrest at least two thousand. Wouldn't you think? After all, the anti-war sentiment was deep and wide and quite vocal at times.

In any event, it is indeed difficult to prove that any certain number of citizens were indeed arrested in MD as political prisoners of Lincoln's usurpatious administration. Particularly since those US citizens were often arrested in the dark of night without any benefit of being charged with a violation of law or the right to trial on any charges, and denied their basic constitutional rights by the president that swore an oath to defend and uphold that constitution.

I have admitted that "most of Davis' support" was an intended exaggeration. But I do not believe the "thousands" figure I have heard, is an exaggeration at all. Perhaps -- but we really have no way of knowing.

Hal

[hawglips]

From the Official Records:

WAR DEPARTMENT, Washington, September 11, 1861.
Major General N. P. BANKS, Commanding near Darnestown, Md.:

GENERAL: The passage of any act of secession by the legislature of Maryland must be prevented. Exercise your own judgment as to the time and manner, but do the work effectively.

Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

SIMON CAMERON,
Secretary of War.

[johan_steele]

Hal, essentially what you are saying is "There were thousands because I say there were thousands." All Neil asked for was a little research to back up a claim made by you. The lack of any apparent research does not add to the credibility of your argument; in fact it creates the distinct impression that there was no research on your part at all and that the figure was pulled from thin air.

[unionblue]

Hal,

What a relief!

I thought you might actually be able to produce documentation that I was unaware of that thousands of people had been arrested in Maryland which had the overall effect of preventing that state from leaving the Union.

The 'I heard' debate is a triffle off-track, don't you think? It tends to divert from the central theme of your contention that the above situation was true. I also like the 'allowing you to defend the tyrant' statement a nice touch also, although it sounds rather dramatic, it again does nothing to prove your 'hearing' claims.

As for the rest of your post #31, again, no proof, no records, no source documents, but just what you consider plausible and are inclined to present as your view on the subject. It is my own opinion that an objective reader would get the idea that what you state seems to be pretty much an established historical fact, at least in your own opinion. If you throw it out there, Hal, you should be able to back it up with something other than that's what I heard.

But Hal, we really do have a way of knowing in spite of your doubts. The web sites I presented above also include lists of those arrested and are not based I what I have heard over the years, either here on this board or elsewhere. There are many books on the subject, The Fate of Liberty, Abraham Lincoln and Civil Liberties, by Mark E. Neely Jr., for one. Lots of good research and numbers there.

I just find it strange that if I presented such a statement, lets say something like, "I've heard everyone in the South owned on average, about ten slaves", I would expect to have my debating head ripped off.

It simply reduces the search for answers here at this board to a 'he said' 'they said' and goes very much against established tradition in which one ought to have some documentation or proof to back up ones claims.

After viewing your thread on Ft. Sumter, where you have presented dozens of historical documents and letters for this board to prove your point, this seems a bit skimpy.

Unionblue

[unionblue]

From the book, The Fate of Liberty, Abraham Lincoln and Civil Liberties, by Mark E. Neely Jr., a letter from the reminiscences of General McClellan on the arrest of the Maryland Legislature.

"Information from various sources received in Aug. and Sept., 1861, convinced the government that there was serious danger of the secession of Maryland.

The secessionists posscessed about two-thirds of each branch of the State legislature, and the general government had what it regarded as good reasons for the believing that a secret, extra, and illegal session of the legislature was about to be convened at Frederick [City] on the 17th of Sept. in order to pass an ordinance of secession. It was understood that this action was to be supported by an advance of the Southern army across the Potomac...It was impossible to permit the secession of Maryland, intervening as it did, between the capital and the loyal States, and commanding all our lines of supply and reinforcement. I do not know how the government obtained the information on which they reached their conclusions. I do not know how reliable it was. I only know that at the time it seemed more than probable, and that ordinary purdence required that it should be regarded as certain. So that when I received the orders for the arrest of the most active members of the legislature, for the purpose of preventing the intended meeting and the passage of the act of secession, I gave that order a most full and hearty support as a measure of undoubted military neccessity.

On the 10th of Sept. Hon. Simon Cameron, Secretary of War, instructed Gen. Banks to prevent the passage of any act of secession by the Maryland legislature, directing him to arrest all or any number of the members, if neccessary, but in any event to do the work effectively.

On the same day the Secretary of War instructed Gen. Dix to arrest six conspicuous and active secessionists of Baltimore, three of whom were members of the legislature.

...On the 10th of Sept. Gen. Dix sent to Secretary Seward and myself marked lists of the legislature. In his letters he strongly approved of the intended arrests, and advised that those arrested should be sent to New York harbor by a special steamer.

The total number of arrests made was about sixteen, and the result was the thorough upsetting of whatever plans the secessionists of Maryland may have entertained. It is needless to say that the arrested parties were ultimately released, and were kindly treated while imprisoned. Their arrest was a military necessity, and they had no cause of complaint. In fact, they might with justice have received much more severe treatment than they did."

Again from the book:

"The Nature of Military Arrests of Civilians Before February 1862.
The largest number of prisoners from any single state in this early period (15 April 1861 - 15 February 1862) hailed from Maryland: 166 of the 509 (throughout the entire country) cases of known residence." The total of civilians arrested throughout the entire country was 864.

When Edwin M. Stanton controlled the arrests from 1863 to 1864, the number of total arrests for civilians rose to 1,111 of these only 136 were arrested in Maryland and 25 of that number were from other parts of the South.

Of course, this only pertains to the State of Maryland, and not the entire country. If you wish the information I have found on that subject, I will be happy to supply it.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[hawglips]

Originally Posted by johan_steele

Hal, essentially what you are saying is "There were thousands because I say there were thousands." All Neil asked for was a little research to back up a claim made by you. The lack of any apparent research does not add to the credibility of your argument; in fact it creates the distinct impression that there was no research on your part at all and that the figure was pulled from thin air.

I'm sorry Shane, but I was not essentially saying that. Thanks!

(Shane, by the way, I really cannot find any reference to that Davis quote which was not in his inaugural. I would like to see where that quote was actually taken from, if you really have found it somewhere. If you have not found it, please let me know that as well. Thanks!)

Hal

[hawglips]

Neil, arresting one single man without authority to do so -- that is the work of an outlaw. Is it not? And when such illegalities are committed by the chief executive, who swore and oath to uphold those very laws -- in order to prevent the legislative process from working, or to silence a critic -- that is the work of a tyrant, is it not?

Perhaps you are interested in what other's have said about the arrests?

"Without the sanction of law the federal government arrested men by the thousands and confined them in military prisons. The number of such executive arrests was certainly over 13,000, and it has been estimated to have been as high as 38,000 "(Columbia Law Review, XXI, 527–28, 1921). -- Charles Smith

"There is no Parliamentary (congressional) authority whatever for what has been done. It has been done simply on Mr. Lincoln’s fiat. At his simple bidding, acting by no authority but his own pleasure, in plain defiance of the provisions of the Constitution, the Habeas Corpus Act has been suspended, the press muzzled, and judges prevented by armed men from enforcing on the citizens’ behalf the laws to which they and the President alike have sworn." -- Macmillan Magazine, 1862

The clause of the constitution, which authorizes the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, is in the 9th section of the first article. This article is devoted to the legislative department of the United States, and has not the slightest reference to the executive department. It begins by providing "that all legislative powers therein granted, shall be vested in a congress of the United States, which shall consist of a senate and house of representatives."...And at the conclusion of this specification, a clause is inserted giving congress "the power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." [17 Fed. Cas. 148]

The great importance which the framers of the constitution attached to the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, to protect the liberty of the citizen, is proved by the fact, that its suspension, except in cases of invasion or rebellion, is first in the list of prohibited powers; and even in these cases the power is denied, and its exercise prohibited, unless public safety shall require it. [17 Fed Cas. 148]

It is the second article of the constitution that provides for the organization of the executive department, enumerates the powers conferred on it, and prescribes its duties. And if the high power over the liberty of the citizen now claimed, was intended to be conferred on the president, it would undoubtedly be found in plain words in this article; but there is nor a word in it that can furnish the slightest ground to justify the exercise of the power. [17 Fed. Cas. 148,149]

He is not empowered to arrest any one charged with an offense against the United States, and whom he may, from the evidence before him, believe to be guilty; nor can he authorize any officer, civil or military, to exercise this power, for the fifth article of the amendments to the constitution expressly provides that no person "shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law"-that is, judicial process. [17 Fed. Cas. 149]

The only power, therefore, which the president possesses, where the "life, liberty or property" of a private citizen is concerned, is the power and duty prescribed in the third section of the second article, which requires "that he shall faithfully take care that the laws shall be faithfully executed." He is not authorized to execute them himself, or through agents or officers, civil or military, appointed by himself, but he is to take care that they be faithfully carried into execution, as they are expounded and adjudged by the co-ordinate branch of the government to which that duty is assigned by the constitution. It is thus made his duty to came in aid of the judicial authority.

With such provisions in the Constitution, expressed in language too clear to be misunderstood by any one, I can see no ground whatever for supposing that the President, in any emergency, or in any state of things, can authorize the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or the arrest of a citizen, except in aid of the judicial power. He certainly does not faithfully execute the laws, if he takes upon himself legislative power, by suspending the writ of habeas corpus, and the judicial power also, by arresting and imprisoning a person without due process of law. [17 Fed. Cas. 149] -- Chief Justice Taney

Is it appropriate to note here that I have heard that Lincoln ordered the good Chief Justice arrested upon hearing of Taney's scathing opinion of Lincoln's usurpations?

Hal

[unionblue]

Hal,

Is this your reply to the statement, of what you heard, about 'thousands' being arrested in Maryland?

One field trip at a time, my friend. I'll be glad to trip down any other path you veer off to, but I would like to know about what you think of the posts I have provided pertaining to the original question/claim.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[whitworth]

Lee was wrong a number of times. Lee was wrong when he thought most of the people of the western part of Virginia would come to the support of their state. West Virginians generally had a different idea about states rights and slavery.

From Fredricktown, Maryland, Lee would send Jefferson Davis this message..."Some cattle, but not in any great numbers, are obtained in this country, the inhabitants are said to have driven many off to Pennsylvania..."
Some Marylanders I guess did not appreciate Confederate money.

Late in the war, Lee expressed shock with the high number of desertions, particularly from North Carolina. Throughout the war, the Confederacy had problems in the counties in the western part of the state.

[unionblue]

Hal,

I see that you have quoted Chief Justice Taney in your post #37. A good source, Taney, and I would like to use him myself in reply.

From the book, Lincoln's Constitution, by Daniel Far ber:

In Luther v. Borden, the Supreme Court resoundingly upheld the use of martial law, in an opinion by noe other than Chief Justice Taney. The case involved a dispute over the legitimacy of the state government in Rhode Island, a dispute that had been resolved by the President in favor of the existing government. In putting down an effort to displace this government by a rival group, the governor had declared martial law.

"Unquestionably," Taney pronounced, "a State may use its military power to put down an armed insurrection, too strong to be controlled by the civil authority." The power to do so "is essential to the existence of every government, essential to the preservation of order and free institutions, and is as necessary to the State of this Union as to any other government." Thus, "If the government of Rhode Island deemed the armed opposition so formidable, and so ramified throughout the State, as to require the use of its military force and the declaration of martial law, we see no ground upon which this court can question its authority." The case involved "a state of war; and the established govenment resorted to the rights and usages of war to maintain itself, and to overcome unlawful opposition." Hence, the military could arrest suspected supporters of the insurrection and could break into houses where such individuals might be hidden, all without a warrant. "Without the power to do this, martial law and the military array of the government would be mere parade, and rather encourage attack than repel it."

The Court has never repudiated the view that martial law is an appropriate measure in contested or occupied territory. The basic concept has remained intact throughout our history, with some refinements and qualifications."

As for your quote by Mr. Charles Smith on the number of civilians arrested during the Civil War, I give the following from the book, The Fate of Liberty, by Mark E. Neely, Jr.:

"It is impossible today to verify the 38,000 figure from its original source or to duplicate the work of Col. Ainsworth's clerks (Chief of the Record and Pension Office of the War Department) or Major General Davis's (adjutant general of the United States)...Percise figures are not available, but historians can nevertheless be percise about what the available figures mean. They show that after 1862 a majority of the citizens arrested were citizens of the Confederacy. They suggest a variety of causes for arrest of Northerners, among which, speaking, writing, and gathering in political groups were rare. They also show that more citizens were arrested that Ainsworth, Rhodes, Davis, Rhandall, or any historian writing since the turn of the century had thought. There were more arrests, but they had less significance for traditional civil liberty than anyone has realized."

Sincerely,
Unionblue