Eleanor Finch
Abraham Lincoln is considered one of the most compelling presidents in American history, as he wrestled with some of the most fundamental questions of constitutional law. One of the most notable controversies surrounding Lincoln's presidency is the suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War. Lincoln initially suspended habeas corpus in Maryland in 1861 to try civilian rioters in military courts and prevent Confederate troops from advancing on Washington. This decision was challenged by Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney, who argued that only Congress had the power to suspend habeas corpus. Lincoln defended his actions, citing the need to ensure public safety during the war. The legality of Lincoln's actions remains a subject of debate, with some arguing that he infringed on constitutional protections, while others contend that his actions were permissible under the Constitution.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Suspended habeas corpus | Lincoln suspended habeas corpus in Maryland in 1861 to try large numbers of civilian rioters in military courts and to prevent the movement of Confederate troops on Washington. He later extended this suspension throughout the Union in 1863. |
| Suspended freedom of speech and press | Lincoln suppressed free speech and suspended the freedom of the press. |
| Deployed the military | Lincoln deployed the military, including calling up the militia. |
| Imposed a blockade | Lincoln imposed a blockade. |
| Declared martial law | Lincoln declared martial law in Kentucky in 1864. |
| Took action without Congressional authorization | Lincoln took certain actions without Congressional authorization. |
| Constitutionality of emancipation | There are questions over the constitutionality of emancipation. |
Explore related products
![Civil War [Marvel Premier Collection]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/81GCzQDerqL._AC_UY218_.jpg)
What You'll Learn
Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus
Abraham Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus was one of his most controversial decisions. The writ of habeas corpus is a legal tool that prevents the government from imprisoning citizens without valid legal grounds. It is a fundamental right outlined in Article I, Section 9 of the US Constitution, which states:
> "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 April 1861, at the outbreak of the American Civil War, Lincoln authorised his military commanders to suspend the writ of habeas corpus between Washington D.C. and Philadelphia (later extended to New York City). This was done to try large numbers of civilian rioters in military courts and to prevent the movement of Confederate troops on Washington. In February 1862, Lincoln ordered the release of all political prisoners, offering them amnesty for past treason or disloyalty, so long as they did not aid the Confederacy.
In September 1862, Lincoln again suspended habeas corpus throughout the country, making anyone charged with interfering with the draft, discouraging enlistments, or aiding the Confederacy subject to martial law. In 1863, Lincoln used the authority granted to him by the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act to suspend habeas corpus throughout the Union in cases involving prisoners of war, spies, traitors, or any member of the military.
The suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War was not without opposition. In June 1861, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney ruled in Ex Parte Merryman that the authority to suspend habeas corpus lay exclusively with Congress, and Lincoln's suspension was therefore invalid. Lincoln refused to abide by this ruling, arguing that his actions were necessary to preserve the Union. In Ex Parte Milligan, the Supreme Court also held that the suspension of habeas corpus did not authorise trial by military tribunals.
Legal scholars have since debated the constitutionality of Lincoln's actions. While some argue that Lincoln violated the Constitution, others, such as Daniel Farber, contend that nearly all of Lincoln's actions were permissible under the Constitution, and that any infringements were not egregious. Farber argues that Lincoln's conduct during the war demonstrates the need for a strong federal government in times of crisis, but also shows that we need not ignore constitutional protections when dealing with such crises.
Preserving the Constitution: Archival Methods and Challenges
You may want to see also
Lincoln's declaration of martial law
Abraham Lincoln is considered one of the most compelling presidents in American history, especially for students of constitutional law and history. This is because Lincoln wrestled with some of the most fundamental and momentous questions of constitutional law.
One of the most notable instances of Lincoln's controversial use of executive power was his suspension of habeas corpus, which is, in essence, the right to a hearing and trial on lawful imprisonment, or more broadly, the supervision of law enforcement by the judiciary. On April 27, 1861, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus under his own authority, applying it to "prisoners of war, spies, or aiders and abettors of the enemy," as well as draft dodgers. This suspension was challenged in Ex parte Merryman, where U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney ruled that only Congress had the power to suspend habeas corpus, making Lincoln's suspension invalid. In response, Lincoln defended his actions, arguing that they were necessary to preserve the Union.
In February 1862, Lincoln took a step back from the suspension of habeas corpus controversy, ordering the release of all political prisoners and offering them amnesty for past treason or disloyalty as long as they did not aid the Confederacy. However, in September of the same year, he again suspended habeas corpus throughout the country, making anyone charged with interfering with the draft, discouraging enlistments, or aiding the Confederacy subject to martial law. This suspension was later included in the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act of 1863, which required actual indictments for suspected traitors.
On July 5, 1864, Lincoln issued Proclamation 113, declaring martial law and suspending habeas corpus in Kentucky. This proclamation applied to "all rebels and insurgents, their aiders and abettors, within the United States, and all persons discouraging volunteer enlistments, resisting militia draft, or guilty of any disloyal practice affording aid and comfort to rebels against the United States." Lincoln's imposition of martial law in Kentucky was later ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Ex parte Milligan, as local courts were still in session.
While Lincoln's actions during the Civil War, such as suspending habeas corpus and imposing martial law, have been controversial, legal scholars like Daniel Farber argue that nearly all of his actions were permissible under the Constitution. Farber contends that Lincoln's conduct during the war demonstrates the need for a strong federal government in wartime, but also emphasizes that we need not circumvent the rule of law or ignore constitutional protections during crises.
Who Was George Washington to the Framers?
You may want to see also
Lincoln's suppression of free speech
Abraham Lincoln is considered one of the most compelling presidents in American history, as he wrestled with some of the most fundamental and momentous questions of constitutional law. However, Lincoln's actions during the Civil War, including his restrictions on civil liberties and freedom of speech, have been the subject of much debate and criticism.
One notable example of Lincoln's suppression of free speech was the arrest and punishment of Clement L. Vallandigham, a prominent Democratic member of Congress from Ohio. Vallandigham was arrested in May 1863 by General Ambrose E. Burnside for making anti-Lincoln and anti-war speeches that were considered to be giving aid to the enemy. He was convicted by a military tribunal and sentenced to prison, but Lincoln changed the punishment to banishment. This case sparked debate about the balance between individuals' constitutional rights and governmental claims of national security.
Another incident involved the Chicago Times newspaper, which was shuttered for criticizing Lincoln's administration during the Civil War. This action was part of Lincoln's broader efforts to restrict pro-Confederate sentiments and maintain national unity during a time of crisis.
In addition to these specific cases, Lincoln also took controversial actions that some argue infringed on civil liberties and freedom of speech. For example, he suspended habeas corpus and imposed martial law in Kentucky in 1864, which was later revoked by President Andrew Johnson in 1865. Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus was ruled invalid by US Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney, who argued that the power to suspend habeas corpus rested with Congress, not the president.
Overall, while Lincoln's actions during the Civil War may have been necessary to preserve the Union, they also raised important questions about the limits of executive power and the protection of constitutional rights, including freedom of speech. Daniel Farber, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, and the University of Minnesota, has argued that nearly all of Lincoln's actions were permissible under the Constitution and that his trespasses were not egregious. However, Farber also acknowledges that some of Lincoln's actions, such as measures to suppress free speech, were excessive and infringed on constitutional protections.
Founding Fathers: Slave Owners and the Constitution
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Lincoln's actions without congressional authorization
Abraham Lincoln is considered one of the most compelling presidents by students of constitutional law and history because he wrestled with some of the most fundamental and momentous questions of constitutional law. In his efforts to preserve the Union during the Civil War, Lincoln took certain actions without Congressional authorization, which led to debates about the constitutionality of his conduct.
One of Lincoln's most controversial actions was the suspension of habeas corpus, a right granted by Article I, Section 9 of the US Constitution. In early 1862, Lincoln temporarily stepped back from the suspension, releasing political prisoners and offering them amnesty for past treason or disloyalty as long as they did not aid the Confederacy. However, in September of the same year, he again suspended habeas corpus throughout the country, making anyone charged with interfering with the draft, discouraging enlistments, or aiding the Confederacy subject to martial law. Lincoln argued that suspending habeas corpus was necessary and constitutional, even without Congressional approval. This defence was challenged by US Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney, who ruled that the power to suspend habeas corpus was reserved for Congress, making the president's suspension invalid.
In addition to suspending habeas corpus, Lincoln took other actions that were seen as infringing on civil liberties. For example, he imposed a blockade and called up the militia, deploying the military. While some argue that these actions were permissible under Article II of the Constitution, others cite them as examples of excessive measures taken by Lincoln or the military. One notable case involved the conviction and sentencing to death of an individual opposed to the Civil War, which may have been based solely on associating with another individual who wanted to take armed action against the Union. After the war, in Ex Parte Milligan, the Supreme Court granted the gentleman's habeas corpus petition.
While Lincoln's actions during the Civil War sparked debates about the constitutionality of his conduct, legal scholars like Daniel Farber argue that his trespasses, if any, were not egregious. Farber contends that Lincoln's conduct demonstrates the need for a strong federal government in wartime while also providing evidence that we need not ignore constitutional protections during a crisis. Lincoln's presidency sets a precedent for grappling with the balance between individuals' constitutional rights and governmental claims of national security.
Individual Equality Provisions in the Constitution: How Many?
You may want to see also
The constitutionality of emancipation
The Emancipation Proclamation, issued by President Abraham Lincoln, declared freedom for slaves in the Confederate states. It was a crucial step towards the abolition of slavery in the United States, but it did not immediately end the practice in all states. The Proclamation was based on Lincoln's interpretation of the Constitution and his understanding of the balance between the power of the national government and states' rights.
Lincoln's actions during the Civil War, including the Emancipation Proclamation, have been the subject of constitutional debate. Some argue that he infringed on states' rights and exceeded his presidential authority. However, legal scholars like Daniel Farber contend that Lincoln's actions were largely permissible under the Constitution and necessary for preserving the Union. Farber acknowledges that Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus and certain unauthorised actions raise constitutional questions. Yet, he argues that Lincoln's overall conduct demonstrated a commitment to constitutional principles and the rule of law.
The constitutionality of the Emancipation Proclamation specifically centres on a few key points. Firstly, Lincoln justified emancipation as a military necessity, arguing that it would weaken the Confederate labour force and bolster the Union army. This interpretation of ""necessity"" was influenced by McCulloch v. Maryland, where the meaning of necessity was left open to interpretation. Secondly, Lincoln acknowledged that the Constitution protected slavery in the states where it existed, but he disagreed with Southern defenders of states' rights on their ability to limit the expansion of slavery in territories and their right to secede from the Union. By issuing the Proclamation, Lincoln strategically targeted slavery in the Confederate states, avoiding the territories, and addressing the issue of secession.
Additionally, Lincoln recognised that a complete end to slavery would require a constitutional amendment. He encouraged Reconstruction plans for Southern states to include laws abolishing slavery and pushed for the passage of the 13th Amendment, which made slavery and involuntary servitude unconstitutional, except as punishment for a crime. The Emancipation Proclamation itself was never legally challenged, and it set a significant precedent for the expansion of presidential power during times of national crisis.
In conclusion, the constitutionality of the Emancipation Proclamation remains a complex and debated topic. Lincoln's actions were shaped by his interpretation of the Constitution, the need to preserve the Union, and his understanding of the limitations of presidential power. While some of his actions may have infringed on civil liberties, the overall impact of the Emancipation Proclamation in ending slavery and expanding presidential authority during times of crisis cannot be understated.
Understanding Scar Formation and Maturation
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
There is no clear answer to this question. While Lincoln did take certain controversial actions, such as suspending habeas corpus, imposing martial law, and suppressing free speech, many of his actions were later authorized by Congress. 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, and when they weren't, they were not egregious.
The Habeas Corpus Suspension Act of 1863 was an act that allowed the suspension of habeas corpus, the right of any person under arrest to appear in person before the court to ensure they have not been falsely accused. President Lincoln used this act to suspend habeas corpus throughout the Union for prisoners of war, spies, traitors, or any member of the military.
Yes, Lincoln did suspend habeas corpus, initially in Maryland in 1861, to try civilian rioters in military courts and prevent the movement of Confederate troops. He later extended the suspension nationwide in 1863.
Ex Parte Merryman was a case in 1861 where U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney ruled that only Congress had the power to suspend habeas corpus, not the President. Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus was thus deemed invalid.
Yes, in addition to suspending habeas corpus, Lincoln also imposed martial law, suppressed free speech, and took certain actions without Congressional authorization. However, many of these actions were taken in response to the military crisis and were later authorized by Congress.
