Lincoln's Constitutional Conundrum: Jailing Dissenters

Abraham Lincoln's conduct during the Civil War has been a topic of great interest and scrutiny for historians, particularly concerning his suspension of the writ of habeas corpus and its constitutionality. Lincoln's actions during this time have been questioned, with some arguing that he subverted the Constitution by suspending habeas corpus, suppressing free speech, and acting without Congressional authorization. However, others defend his actions as permissible under the Constitution during a time of crisis. The academic discussion tends to favour Lincoln, but the lack of detailed judicial scrutiny and the passage of time make it challenging to determine the legality of his actions conclusively.

Explore related products

Lincoln's Constitution

$8.24 $17

Presidential Power and the Modern Presidents: The Politics of Leadership from Roosevelt to Reagan

$24.99

Presidential Power: Theories and Dilemmas

$34.25 $51.99

By Executive Order: Bureaucratic Management and the Limits of Presidential Power

$29.34 $35

Presidential Command: Power, Leadership, and the Making of Foreign Policy from Richard Nixon to George W. Bush

$17.95 $22

The Specter of Dictatorship: Judicial Enabling of Presidential Power (Stanford Studies in Law and Politics)

$25.55 $28

Suspension of habeas corpus

The suspension of habeas corpus was one of Abraham Lincoln's most controversial decisions. Habeas corpus is the right of any person under arrest to appear in person before the court to ensure they have not been falsely accused. Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution states that:

> The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

In 1861, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus in Maryland, a border state, to try large numbers of civilian rioters in military courts and to prevent the movement of Confederate troops on Washington. The order was eventually extended in response to different threats. Lincoln's decision was in response to the American Civil War and the fear of a rebellion in Maryland that would endanger Washington. He ordered General Winfield Scott to suspend habeas corpus near railroad lines that connected Philadelphia to Washington.

On May 25, 1861, federal troops arrested a Maryland planter, John Merryman, on suspicion of his involvement in a conspiracy as part of an armed secessionist group. Merryman's lawyers appealed, and in early June 1861, US Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney ruled in Ex Parte Merryman that Article I, Section 9 of the US Constitution reserves the power to suspend habeas corpus to Congress, and thus the president's suspension was invalid. Taney argued that the Constitution clearly intended for Congress, and not the President, to have the power to suspend the writ during emergencies.

Lincoln did not respond directly or immediately to the Ex Parte Merryman decision. Instead, he waited until a July 4 address to Congress to defend his actions, including the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, arguing that it was necessary to arrest and detain individuals deemed dangerous to public safety. In early 1862, Lincoln took a step back from the suspension of habeas corpus controversy, ordering the release of political prisoners and offering them amnesty for past treason or disloyalty.

In March 1863, Lincoln signed the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act into law, which authorized the president to suspend the right of habeas corpus. Six months later, he suspended habeas corpus under the authority granted to him by the Act.

Lincoln's supporters argued that the President can suspend habeas corpus in emergencies

The suspension of habeas corpus by Abraham Lincoln is a highly debated topic. Lincoln's supporters argued that the President can suspend habeas corpus in emergencies. This was based on the provision in Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, which states that "the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion and invasion the public safety may require it". This is often referred to as the suspension clause.

Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus occurred during the Civil War, a time of national crisis and emergency. He ordered General Winfield Scott to suspend habeas corpus near railroad lines connecting Philadelphia to Washington, due to fears of a rebellion in Maryland that could endanger Washington. This was a localized suspension intended to protect the public and ensure the Maryland lines remained open.

The academic discussion of Lincoln's actions tends to favour him. Daniel Farber, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, and the University of Minnesota, argues that nearly all of Lincoln's actions were permissible under the Constitution. While Lincoln's conduct of the war demonstrated the need for a strong federal government, it also showed that constitutional protections could be maintained during a crisis.

However, Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus has also faced criticism. Some argue that the suspension clause refers to Congress, not the President, and that only Congress has the power to suspend habeas corpus. Additionally, Lincoln's actions were seen as excessive, particularly in suppressing free speech. For example, a gentleman who opposed the Civil War was convicted and sentenced to death, possibly for merely associating with an individual who wanted to take armed action against the Union.

The constitutional validity of Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus remains a complex and debated topic, with some arguing for its necessity during a national emergency, while others criticize it as an overreach of presidential power.

Lincoln's actions were excessive, including measures to suppress free speech

During his presidency, Abraham Lincoln took several measures that were deemed excessive, including actions that suppressed free speech. Lincoln's conduct during the Civil War has been a subject of debate among historians and scholars, who have evaluated his administration's actions and their constitutionality.

One of the most notable instances of Lincoln's suppression of free speech was the case of Clement L. Vallandigham, a prominent Democratic member of Congress from Ohio. Vallandigham was arrested and convicted by a military tribunal for making an anti-war political speech. He was sentenced to prison, but Lincoln commuted his sentence to banishment. This case sparked criticism and questions about the balance between individual rights and national security.

Another example of Lincoln's actions suppressing free speech was the shutdown of the Chicago Times. The newspaper was closed, and its editors were arrested for excessively criticizing the Lincoln administration. Additionally, the office of the Sunday Chronicle, a Washington, D.C., newspaper, was destroyed with the approval of the secretary of war, Edwin M. Stanton.

During the Civil War, Lincoln restricted civil liberties, including First Amendment press freedoms and other freedoms of expression. Newspaper reporters and editors were arrested without due process for opposing the draft, discouraging enlistments, or criticizing the government. While some scholars argue that Lincoln's actions were necessary to execute the war, others debate the constitutionality of his decisions. Lincoln justified his actions based on the president's war powers, but the specific boundaries of those powers during wartime were not clearly defined at the time.

In conclusion, while Lincoln is revered for his role in ending slavery and preserving the Union, his actions during the Civil War included measures that suppressed free speech and restricted civil liberties. These actions have been scrutinized and debated by scholars, raising important questions about the balance between national security and individual freedoms during times of crisis.

Explore related products

Contested Ground: How to Understand the Limits of Presidential Power

$26.49 $26.95

Presidential Power

$19.99 $7.95

Presidential Power: the Politics of Leadership

$38.02

Presidential Power and the American Political System

$3.99 $17.99

The Law of the Executive Branch: Presidential Power (Oxford Commentaries on American Law)

$31.49 $66

Study Guide: Presidential Power and the Modern Presidents by Richard E. Neustadt (SuperSummary)

$9.95 $11.95

Lincoln's conduct of the war demonstrates the need for a strong federal government

Abraham Lincoln's conduct during the Civil War has been a subject of extensive debate among historians, particularly regarding his suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. Lincoln's actions during the war demonstrated his belief in a strong federal government, but they also raised questions about the limits of presidential power and respect for constitutional protections.

Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus, which allows individuals to challenge their imprisonment or detention, was a controversial move. He authorized military officers to suspend the writ when they deemed it necessary for public safety, particularly near railroad lines connecting Philadelphia to Washington, to prevent a potential rebellion in Maryland. This action was based on Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, which states that habeas corpus can be suspended in cases of "rebellion or invasion" where public safety is at risk.

However, Lincoln's decision was challenged by Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney, who argued that the power to suspend habeas corpus rested with Congress, not the President. Taney's ruling in Ex Parte Merryman highlighted the constitutional debate over the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches. While Lincoln's supporters argued that the Constitution allowed the President to act swiftly in emergencies, others saw his actions as a violation of constitutional checks and balances.

Lincoln also took other controversial actions during the war, such as calling up a militia, deploying the military, and imposing a blockade, which some argued infringed on congressional powers. Additionally, he faced criticism for suppressing free speech, as in the case of a gentleman who opposed the Civil War and was sentenced to death for potentially associating with those who wanted to take action against the Union.

Despite these controversies, legal scholars like Daniel Farber argue that Lincoln's actions were largely permissible under the Constitution or subsequently authorized by Congress. Farber contends that Lincoln's conduct during the war demonstrates the need for a strong federal government, especially in times of crisis. However, it also underscores the importance of upholding the rule of law and respecting constitutional protections, even during periods of national emergency.

Lincoln's actions were permissible under the Constitution, and not egregious

Abraham Lincoln's actions during his presidency have been the subject of much historical debate, particularly concerning his suspension of the writ of habeas corpus and his deployment of the military without Congressional authorization. While some argue that Lincoln violated the Constitution, others contend that his actions were permissible and did not constitute egregious trespasses.

Firstly, it is important to acknowledge that Lincoln's presidency occurred during a critical period in American history, marked by the Civil War and the Southern States' efforts to secede. Lincoln faced significant challenges and had to make difficult decisions to preserve the Union. In such extraordinary circumstances, it can be argued that certain actions, which might otherwise be considered unconstitutional, were justifiable to maintain national unity and security.

One of Lincoln's most controversial actions was his suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. This ancient right, dating back to the Magna Carta, protects individuals from arbitrary arrest and detention by compelling the government to provide a valid reason for their imprisonment before a judge. During the Civil War, Lincoln authorized military officers to suspend this right in areas where public safety was deemed to be at risk. This led to the arrest and detention of individuals, including John Merryman, a Maryland planter suspected of involvement in an armed secessionist conspiracy.

While some argue that Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus violated the Constitution, others, like law professor Daniel Farber, contend that his actions were permissible. They argue that Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution allows for the suspension of habeas corpus in cases of "rebellion or invasion" when public safety requires it. In Lincoln's defense, it is argued that the Civil War and the threat of rebellion in Maryland presented exactly such a situation. Additionally, while Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney challenged Lincoln's suspension, higher courts never ruled on the issue, and Congress eventually passed legislation affirming the president's power to suspend habeas corpus.

Another point of contention is Lincoln's deployment of the military and imposition of a blockade without prior Congressional authorization. Here, Farber and others argue that Lincoln acted within his authority under Article II of the Constitution. They contend that the president has the power to take swift action in emergencies, and that Lincoln's actions were necessary to respond to the crisis posed by secession and the Civil War. While there may have been constitutional infringements, they were relatively minor and subsequently rectified through Congressional authorization.

In conclusion, while Lincoln's actions during the Civil War have been scrutinized and debated, it is important to recognize the extraordinary circumstances he faced. His supporters argue that his actions were permissible under the Constitution and that he did not egregiously violate its principles. Lincoln's conduct demonstrates the complexities of constitutional law and the difficult balance between individual liberties and national security during times of crisis.

Frequently asked questions