Eleanor Finch
During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln took several controversial actions, including suspending habeas corpus, declaring martial law, arbitrarily arresting civilians, and shutting down opposition newspapers. These actions led to questions about whether Lincoln had exceeded his presidential powers and violated the Constitution. Lincoln's supporters argue that his actions were justified under the Constitution, citing the unprecedented crisis caused by the Civil War and his role as commander-in-chief. However, critics, including Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney, have challenged Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus, claiming that only Congress had the power to do so. Lincoln's actions during the Civil War set a precedent for balancing individual rights and national security, and his legacy continues to influence debates on civil liberties, federalism, and the separation of powers.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Lincoln's actions | Suspended habeas corpus |
| Deployed the military | |
| Blockaded Southern ports | |
| Authorized arbitrary arrests | |
| Empaneled military tribunals to try civilians | |
| Lincoln's view | The American nation came into existence at the moment of independence |
| State governments owed their existence to this act of nationhood | |
| He was dubious about state sovereignty | |
| The word sovereignty doesn’t appear in the Constitution | |
| Congress's view | Only Congress could suspend habeas corpus |
| Congress passed several laws between 1861 and 1863 that aided the growing movement toward emancipation | |
| Congress approved a law enacting an additional article of war, which forbade Union Army officers from returning fugitive slaves to their owners |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus
The writ of habeas corpus is a fundamental right, enshrined in the Constitution, which states that Americans arrested by the government have the right to be informed of the charges against them and to appear before a judge. However, the Constitution also includes a suspension clause, which states that "The Privilege of Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it".
In March 1863, Congress passed the Habeas Corpus Act, effectively authorizing Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus. Lincoln signed the bill into law, and it became inoperative at the end of the Civil War.
Exploring Concurrent Powers: Understanding Shared Responsibilities
You may want to see also
Lincoln's refusal to release prisoners
During the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln took several controversial actions, including the suspension of habeas corpus, which allowed for the imprisonment of citizens and non-citizens without the usual constitutional guarantees. Lincoln's refusal to release prisoners, despite being ordered to do so by Chief Justice Taney, is a notable example of his willingness to go beyond the Constitution.
In the early days of the war, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus due to the threat of rebellion in Maryland, which could have cut Washington off from the rest of the country. Chief Justice Taney, acting independently of the Supreme Court, ordered Lincoln to release one of the prisoners, arguing that only Congress had the power to suspend habeas corpus. However, Lincoln refused, believing that his actions were essential to the country's survival. Lincoln's position on the matter was that he was justified in disobeying the judiciary due to the extreme threat posed by secession.
The case of Lincoln's refusal to release prisoners is likely unique in American history. While there may be technical legal defenses for Lincoln's actions, his stance on suspending habeas corpus was rooted in his belief that it was necessary for the country's preservation. Lincoln also made it clear that he was prepared to answer for any violations of the law if Congress did not support his actions.
Lincoln's actions during the Civil War set a precedent for civil liberties curtailment. While the specific circumstances of the Civil War may not be generalizable, some actions by subsequent administrations, such as military trials for citizens captured while serving in opposing armies, have drawn on Civil War precedents. Additionally, Lincoln's refusal to release prisoners and his use of arbitrary arrests have been scrutinized, with critics arguing that they undermined civil liberties.
In another instance, Lincoln refused to grant clemency to Nathaniel Gordon, a convicted slave trader. Despite pleas from Gordon's supporters, Lincoln declined to commute Gordon's death sentence, stating that it was his "duty to refuse." Gordon was executed in 1862, and his case stands out among Lincoln's papers, known for his mercy and willingness to pardon. Lincoln's refusal to commute Gordon's sentence highlights his strong stance against slavery.
Research Engagement: Activities That Define Involvement
You may want to see also
Lincoln's use of the pocket veto
In 1864, President Abraham Lincoln used the pocket veto to block the Wade-Davis Bill, which outlined a plan for how the Union would be reunited following the Civil War. The bill was passed by Congress on its last day in session in July 1864, but Lincoln declined to sign it, effectively killing it.
The Wade-Davis Bill was named for Ohio Senator Ben Wade and Maryland Representative Henry Winter Davis, both well-known radical Republicans. The bill reflected the differing views of Lincoln and the Radical Republicans on how to deal with the Confederacy. Lincoln believed that the Confederates could be coaxed back into peaceful coexistence, while the Radical Republicans considered them traitors who could not be trusted.
The bill made readmittance to the Union for former Confederate states contingent on a majority in each state taking an oath that they had never supported the Confederacy. Lincoln objected to the idea that seceded states needed to "re-join" the Union, arguing that states were not constitutionally allowed to secede in the first place. He also proposed a more lenient plan that would allow Confederate states to establish new governments after just 10% of their male population took loyalty oaths.
Lincoln's pocket veto of the Wade-Davis Bill set the stage for a struggle between President Andrew Johnson, who tried to implement a version of Lincoln's plan after his death, and the Radical Republicans in Congress. The 1866 midterm elections, which resulted in a Republican victory, gave Congress control over Reconstruction policy.
Shadow Health: Constitutional Health Questions Answered
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Lincoln's declaration of martial law
The concept of martial law in the United States is closely associated with the right of habeas corpus, which is the right to a hearing and trial on lawful imprisonment. Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution 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, President 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 proclamation was challenged in Ex parte Milligan, and the Supreme Court ruled that Lincoln's imposition of martial law was unconstitutional in areas where local courts were still in session.
Lincoln's actions during the Civil War set a precedent for the suspension of civil liberties, including the imprisonment of citizens and non-citizens without the usual constitutional guarantees, and the creation of military tribunals. Lincoln's refusal to release one of the prisoners, despite Chief Justice Taney's order to do so, is said to be unique in American history. Lincoln justified his actions by arguing that suspending habeas corpus was essential to the survival of the country.
On September 15, 1863, Lincoln imposed Congressionally-authorized martial law on Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri. This was known as Proclamation 113, which declared:
> I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws, do hereby declare that in my judgment the public safety especially requires that the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus... be made effectual and be duly enforced in and throughout the said State of Kentucky, and that martial law be for the present established therein.
Lincoln's actions during the Civil War were justified under the Constitution, as the drafters of the Constitution deliberately gave Congress the power to declare war, and wanted the president to be able to act on his own if the country was attacked. In Lincoln's case, a third of the country was in hostile hands, and a US fort had been attacked and taken by hostile troops.
Executive Power: Is the Balance of Powers Unbalanced?
You may want to see also
Lincoln's arbitrary arrests and military tribunals
During the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, a legal request for a suspect's appearance before a court, and arrested civilians without the usual constitutional guarantees. Lincoln justified this by arguing that it was essential to the survival of the country in the face of a rebellion. The exact number of these arrests is unknown, but estimates range from 13,535 to as many as 38,000.
Lincoln's administration arrested anti-war protesters, pro-secession Marylanders, and several prominent politicians, including the mayors of Baltimore and Washington, D.C., Congressman Henry May, and former Kentucky Governor Charles S. Morehead. Many Northern newspaper editors were also imprisoned, and opposition newspapers were shut down.
The Lincoln administration's actions regarding internal security were indeed efficient. For example, Rose O'Neal Greenhow, a Washington socialite and spy, was arrested on August 23, 1861, for giving away McDowell's plans for the first Bull Run campaign to Beauregard. Another famous spy, Thomas A. Jones, was arrested on October 4, 1861, for being the head of the Confederate "mail" system in southern Maryland and later helping John Wilkes Booth escape to Virginia.
Lincoln's actions have been criticised by some as overstepping constitutional bounds and "shredding" the Constitution. However, others argue that his actions were justifiable under the Constitution, which allows the president to act on his own if the country is attacked. Lincoln's refusal to release prisoners, despite Chief Justice Taney's order, is a unique act of defiance in American history.
Understanding Current Political Roles and Their Titles
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus was challenged by Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney, who argued that only Congress had the power to suspend habeas corpus. Lincoln's response was that the Constitution was silent on which branch of government was to exercise the power. He argued that the framers of the Constitution could not have intended for Congress to assemble before suspending habeas corpus in an emergency. Lincoln's actions were justified by the fact that a third of the country was in hostile hands, and a U.S. fort had been attacked and taken by hostile troops.
Lincoln's most controversial actions during the Civil War included declaring martial law, arbitrarily arresting civilians, and shutting down opposition newspapers. He took steps such as calling on the militia, deploying the military, and blocking Southern ports without Congressional authorization. However, in most cases, he obtained authorization from Congress after acting, and his constitutional infringement was comparatively slight.
Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation only freed enslaved people in areas of rebellion, leaving more than 700,000 in bondage in Union-occupied areas and border states. The proclamation was issued under Lincoln's constitutional role as commander-in-chief as a "military necessity". Since it was a wartime act, it could have been overturned once the war was over. However, Congress had already passed several laws between 1861 and 1863 that aided the growing movement toward emancipation.
