Eleanor Finch
Abraham Lincoln is considered one of the most compelling presidents in US history, as his presidency raises several questions about constitutional law. One of the most notable controversies during his presidency was the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, which led to a constitutional showdown with Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney. This occurred amid fears of a rebellion in Maryland that would endanger Washington, and Lincoln's actions were justified as a means of maintaining public safety. However, Taney argued that only Congress had the power to suspend the writ during emergencies. While some of Lincoln's actions during the Civil War have been criticised as unconstitutional, legal scholars such as Daniel Farber argue that most of his actions were permissible under the Constitution and that he recognised the significance of the challenge posed by secession.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Suspended habeas corpus | John Merryman, opposed to the Civil War, was arrested and sentenced to death |
| Took certain actions without Congressional authorization | Deploying the military, calling up the militia, and imposing a blockade |
| Suppressed free speech | John Merryman's case may have been related to his association with another individual who wanted to take armed action against the Union |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
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. The US Constitution specifically protects this right in Article I, Section 9, 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, Lincoln unilaterally suspended habeas corpus in Maryland, which was a volatile border state, to try large numbers of civilian rioters in military courts and to prevent the movement of Confederate troops on Washington. Lincoln was worried about Southern sympathizers in Maryland who threatened military supply lines moving through the state to the nation's capital. He expanded the suspension incrementally to other areas of importance to the war effort until, in the fall of 1862, he extended the suspension to the whole country until the end of the war.
Lincoln's decision was rapidly challenged in court and overturned by the US Circuit Court of Appeals in Maryland, led by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, who ruled that only Congress could suspend habeas corpus. Lincoln and his Attorney General Edward Bates ignored the Chief Justice's order. When Lincoln's dismissal of the ruling was criticised in an editorial by prominent Baltimore newspaper editor Frank Key Howard, they had Howard arrested by federal troops without charge or trial.
Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus has been the subject of much debate among constitutional scholars. Some argue that Lincoln's actions were permissible under the Constitution, while others contend that he infringed upon it. Daniel Farber, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, and the University of Minnesota, concludes that nearly all of Lincoln's actions were permissible under the Constitution, and when he did infringe upon it, his trespasses were not egregious. Farber also acknowledges that, on occasion, Lincoln's actions or those of the military were excessive, such as measures to suppress free speech.
Lincoln himself defended his actions, arguing that acts that might be illegal in peacetime might be necessary "in cases of rebellion" when the nation's survival was at stake.
Singapore's Supreme Court: A Breakdown of Its Composition
You may want to see also
Acting without Congressional authorization
Abraham Lincoln is considered one of the most compelling presidents by students of constitutional law and history. This is because he confronted some of the most significant constitutional law questions. One such question is whether Lincoln violated the Constitution by acting without Congressional authorization.
In his book, *Lincoln's Constitution*, Daniel Farber examines Lincoln's conduct during the Civil War and the constitutionality of his actions. Farber acknowledges that Lincoln took several actions without prior Congressional authorization, such as "calling up the militia, deploying the military, and imposing a blockade." However, he argues that Lincoln's actions were largely permissible under the Constitution. In most cases, Lincoln's decisions were either authorised by his authority under Article II of the Constitution or subsequently approved by Congress.
One notable exception was Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War. In April 1861, 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 decision was deemed controversial, as some believed that only Congress had the power to suspend habeas corpus. In June 1861, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney ruled that the president's suspension was invalid, asserting that Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution reserves this power for Congress.
To address the legal concerns, Congress passed the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act in 1863. This Act authorised the president to suspend habeas corpus during the Civil War and provided for the release of political prisoners. Lincoln signed the bill into law, and six months later, he suspended habeas corpus under the authority granted by Congress. While this action was now constitutionally valid, it still sparked debates about civil liberties and the balance between individual rights and national security.
In conclusion, while Abraham Lincoln did take some actions without prior Congressional authorization, most of his decisions were ultimately deemed permissible under the Constitution. The suspension of habeas corpus, in particular, highlighted the tensions between civil liberties and national security concerns during a time of crisis. Farber's analysis of Lincoln's presidency offers valuable insights into the constitutional questions faced during the Civil War and their potential relevance in modern times.
Women's Suffrage: A Constitutional Conundrum?
You may want to see also
Use of militia and military deployment
Abraham Lincoln's early life included a stint in the Illinois Militia during the Black Hawk War in 1832. Lincoln enrolled as a private in the Sangamon County regiment of the Illinois Militia, and his fellow militiamen elected him Captain. Lincoln's militia regiment spent time around the Mississippi River in April 1832, marching and resupplying in an unsuccessful search for Native American forces led by Chief Black Hawk. Despite the lack of combat, Lincoln's militia experience shaped his leadership abilities and political career. It also familiarized him with military affairs, which would dominate his presidency during the Civil War.
Lincoln's time in the militia influenced his perspective on the role of citizen soldiers in national security. As president, he faced the challenge of responding to the Civil War and the secession of Southern states. Lincoln's actions during this crisis included calling up the militia, deploying the military, and imposing a blockade. Legal scholar Daniel Farber evaluates these actions in his book, "Lincoln's Constitution."
Farber concludes that Lincoln's use of militia and military deployment was generally in accordance with his authority under Article II of the Constitution. In some cases, Lincoln obtained authorization from Congress after taking action, thus rendering his constitutional infringement relatively minor. However, Farber acknowledges that some actions by Lincoln and the military were excessive, such as measures to suppress free speech.
Lincoln's conduct during the Civil War demonstrated the need for a strong federal government in wartime. His ability to navigate the constitutional crisis and maintain the Union while respecting constitutional protections has been praised by scholars. Lincoln's experience in the militia and his subsequent role as commander-in-chief during the Civil War highlight the evolution of his understanding of military affairs and the complex relationship between individual rights and national security.
The Constitution's Monetary Solution: A United Currency
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Free speech suppression
Abraham Lincoln is considered one of the most compelling presidents in American history, particularly for constitutional law and history students. This is because he confronted some of the most fundamental and significant constitutional law questions. One of the most notable controversies surrounding Lincoln's presidency was the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War.
On May 25, 1861, federal troops arrested a Maryland planter, John Merryman, on suspicion of involvement in a conspiracy as part of an armed secessionist group. Lincoln had 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 suspension was based on Article 1, 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 or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney directly challenged Lincoln's suspension of the writ of habeas corpus on May 28, 1861, in a national constitutional showdown. Taney argued that the Constitution intended for Congress, not the President, to have the power to suspend the writ during emergencies. While Taney acknowledged the legitimacy of suspending the writ in certain cases, he believed that only Congress had the authority to do so. In response, Lincoln defended his actions, stating that it was necessary to authorize the Commanding General to suspend the writ in cases where individuals were deemed dangerous to public safety.
The controversy surrounding Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus highlights the tension between individual freedoms and national security during times of crisis. While some argue that Lincoln's actions infringed on civil liberties, others, like law professor Daniel Farber, contend that Lincoln's conduct demonstrated the need for a strong federal government in wartime. Farber acknowledges that Lincoln's actions may have occasionally been excessive, such as in measures to suppress free speech. However, he ultimately concludes that Lincoln's constitutional infringements were slight and that his actions were permissible under the Constitution or subsequently authorized by Congress.
Interpreting the Constitution: A Lawyer's Complex Task
You may want to see also
The Compact Theory
In United States constitutional theory, the Compact Theory asserts that the United States was formed through an agreement or compact between all the states, and that the federal government is therefore a creation of the states. This theory suggests that the states have the final say on whether the federal government has exceeded its authority as outlined in the compact.
In the years leading up to the Civil War, the Compact Theory was used by southern states to argue that they had the right to nullify federal law and secede from the union. For instance, during the Nullification Crisis of 1828-1832, John C. Calhoun argued that the states, as parties to a compact, had the right to judge for themselves whether the terms of the compact were being honoured. This "right of judging" was described as "an essential attribute of sovereignty", which the states retained upon the formation of the Constitution.
In response to the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, Jefferson claimed that the federal government had overstepped its authority and advocated for the nullification of these laws by the states. He asserted that the states had formed a compact, or Constitution, for specific purposes and delegated certain powers to the General Government, while retaining the right to self-government.
Innocent Until Proven Guilty: A Constitutional Principle?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
It is argued that Abraham Lincoln did not violate the Constitution, and his actions were permissible under Article II of the Constitution.
Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and took certain actions without Congressional authorization.
Habeas corpus means that the government must show cause to a judge for the arrest or detention of a person.
Yes, in Ex Parte Milligan, the Supreme Court granted a gentleman's habeas corpus petition after he was convicted and sentenced to death for associating with another individual who wanted to take armed action against the Union.
Lincoln did not directly respond to the Ex Parte Merryman decision. Instead, he waited until a July 4th address to confront the decision at a special session of Congress.
