Did Lincoln break the law to maintain the union, and if he did, was he justified? (interstate, Congress)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The civil war ended states rights as the founders understood it. Lincoln completely changed our government, how it operates, and how it effects us today.
Thank God for the Civil War Amendments to the Constitution. Without them, any state could pass laws in violation of the Bill of Rights. Those amendments prevent states from violating the rights of people within their state.
The Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction. This clause was the basis for Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court decision that precipitated the dismantling of racial segregation, and for many other decisions rejecting irrational or unnecessary discrimination against people belonging to various groups.
While many state constitutions are modeled after the United States Constitution and federal laws, those state constitutions did not necessarily include provisions comparable to the Bill of Rights. In Barron v. Baltimore (1833), the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Bill of Rights restrained only the federal government, not the states. However, the Supreme Court has subsequently held that most provisions of the Bill of Rights apply to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment under a doctrine called "incorporation."
Would you be happy to live in a country where a state could sanction a state religion? Ban freedom of speech? Or discriminate against anyone they deemed unfit for citizenship. The 14th Amendment prevents all of that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
The Supreme court said Lincoln went out of the bounds of the constitution, he ignored it. He should have been impeached.
Ah the Merryman case. Merrymen was a guy in the Maryland Militia that happened to go killing Union soldiers, burning bridges, tearing down telegraph lines, and recruiting fellow soldiers to join the fight against the US Govt. Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus and had the guy arrested. At the time of Lincoln, there was not a consensus on which branch of Congress could declare Martial Law. It was clear that the rebellion allowed it, it was just that the executive (Lincoln) had issued it.
Merrymen took the case to the Federal Courts (interesting for a traitor), and eventually Roger Taney, not the full Supreme Court, ruled in his favor. By that time it was moot as Lincoln had freed all political prisoners in 1862. Extraordinary times demand extraordinary measures. Confederate sympathizers were cutting telegraph lines in the North and ripping up rain lines as well as killing Union soldiers.
Taney is the infamous author of the despicable Dredd Scott decision, so keep that in mind where his loyalties were.
Sorry, but that was hardly the case for impeachment, and there never was an attemp to impeach Lincoln. He won re-election with 90% of the electoral vote in 1864. Congress gave Lincoln approval for martial law in 1863 and retroactively. It was all moot at that point.
Just imagine for a moment what would happen to Merryman today if he were killing US soldiers and cutting communication lines and ripping up railroads in the US. Imagine a guy plotting to take over Washington DC. Terrorist anyone? Gitmo anyone?
Imagine what Southerners today would do with a guy like that. How ironic Southerners forget their own treasonous past.
Among the pro-Confederates in the Maryland militia was Lieutenant John Merryman. He had recruited and trained soldiers for the Confederate Army. After the Baltimore Riot he was involved in cutting telegraph wires and burning railroad bridges.
On May 25, Merryman was arrested by order of Brigadier General William High Keim, USV, and charged with treason and being a commissioned lieutenant in an organization intending armed hostility toward the government, namely the Confederate Army.
The case
Merryman's lawyers appealed to Roger Taney to issue the writ. Taney promptly issued a writ of habeas corpus for Merryman demanding that General George Cadwalader, the commander of Fort McHenry, where Merryman was being held, bring Merryman before him the next day. At this time, Supreme Court Justices sat as circuit court judges, as well. Taney decided to issue the writ while sitting as the circuit court judge for the District of Maryland rather than as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. His reason, he states, was that it would permit Gen. Cadwalader to answer the writ in Baltimore rather than Washington, D.C., and so not have to leave the limits of his military command.
Cadwalader responded to Taney's order by sending a colonel to explain that he had suspended the writ of habeas corpus in Merryman's case. Taney reacted by issuing a writ of attachment for Cadwalader, which ordered a U.S. Marshal to seize him and bring him before the court the following day. The marshal was refused entry into the fort.
In response, Taney ruled that the president can neither suspend habeas corpus nor authorize a military officer to do it, and that military officers cannot arrest people except as ordered by the courts. He noted that, while the marshal had the right to call up the posse comitatus to assist him in seizing Gen. Cadwalader and bringing him before the court, it was probably unwise for him to do so and thus that he would not punish the marshal for failing in his task. He then promised a more lengthy, written ruling within the week and ordered that it be sent to President Lincoln, "in order that he might perform his constitutional duty, to enforce the laws, by securing obedience to the process of the United States."
Taney was politically a partisan Democrat and an opponent of Lincoln. In his written opinion, he raged at length against Lincoln for granting himself easily abused powers. Taney asserted that the president was not authorized to suspend habeas corpus, observing that none of the Kings of England exercised such power.
"These great and fundamental laws, which congress itself could not suspend, have been disregarded and suspended, like the writ of habeas corpus, by a military order, supported by force of arms. Such is the case now before me, and I can only say that if the authority which the constitution has confided to the judiciary department and judicial officers, may thus, upon any pretext or under any circumstances, be usurped by the military power, at its discretion, the people of the United States are no longer living under a government of laws, but every citizen holds life, liberty and property at the will and pleasure of the army officer in whose military district he may happen to be found."
Taney noted in a footnote to the above passage that the United States Declaration of Independence listed making the military power independent of and superior to the civil power as one justification for dissolving political allegiance.The Declaration of Independence states," He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power."
Aftermath
The rest of the Supreme Court had nothing to do with Merryman, and the other two justices from the South, John Catron and James Moore Wayne, acted as Unionists; for instance, Catron's charge to a Saint Louis grand jury, saying that armed resistance to the federal government was treason, was quoted in the New York Tribune of July 14, 1861. On circuit, Catron closely cooperated with military authorities.
Lincoln disregarded the ruling. Lincoln also got an opinion supporting his suspension from Attorney General Bates. It formed the basis for Lincoln's July 4 speech to Congress, in which he rhetorically asked, "Are all the laws, but one, to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?" Lincoln subsequently expanded the zone within which the writ was suspended.
After reconvening, Congress failed to pass a bill favored by Lincoln to sanction his suspensions,and several more district and circuit court rulings affirmed Taney's opinion. Lincoln rendered these cases moot on February 14, 1862, when he issued an order releasing almost all political prisoners on parole.
In response to opposition to conscription, however, Lincoln again suspended habeas corpus six months later, this time throughout the entire country.
The passage of the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act in March 1863 ended the controversy, at least temporarily, by authorizing the suspension of habeas corpus upon Congress's authority rather than on the president's authority.
The Merryman decision is still among the best-known Civil War-era court cases and it is one of Taney's most famous opinions, alongside the Dred Scott case. Its legal argument holding that Congress alone may suspend the writ is noted for reiterating the opinion of John Marshall and the court in Ex parte Bollman and was recently restated by the Supreme Court in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.
And Lincoln did ultimately get his congressional approval for martial law with the passage of Habeus Corpus Act of 1863, and it did indemnify the President from his prior actions suspending habeus when the Civil War first broke out. No case for impeachment.
Thank God for the Civil War Amendments to the Constitution. Without them, any state could pass laws in violation of the Bill of Rights. Those amendments prevent states from violating the rights of people within their state.
The Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction. This clause was the basis for Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court decision that precipitated the dismantling of racial segregation, and for many other decisions rejecting irrational or unnecessary discrimination against people belonging to various groups.
While many state constitutions are modeled after the United States Constitution and federal laws, those state constitutions did not necessarily include provisions comparable to the Bill of Rights. In Barron v. Baltimore (1833), the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Bill of Rights restrained only the federal government, not the states. However, the Supreme Court has subsequently held that most provisions of the Bill of Rights apply to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment under a doctrine called "incorporation."
Would you be happy to live in a country where a state could sanction a state religion? Ban freedom of speech? Or discriminate against anyone they deemed unfit for citizenship. The 14th Amendment prevents all of that.
Ah the Merryman case. Merrymen was a guy in the Maryland Militia that happened to go killing Union soldiers, burning bridges, tearing down telegraph lines, and recruiting fellow soldiers to join the fight against the US Govt. Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus and had the guy arrested. At the time of Lincoln, there was not a consensus on which branch of Congress could declare Martial Law. It was clear that the rebellion allowed it, it was just that the executive (Lincoln) had issued it.
Merrymen took the case to the Federal Courts (interesting for a traitor), and eventually Roger Taney, not the full Supreme Court, ruled in his favor. By that time it was moot as Lincoln had freed all political prisoners in 1862. Extraordinary times demand extraordinary measures. Confederate sympathizers were cutting telegraph lines in the North and ripping up rain lines as well as killing Union soldiers.
Taney is the infamous author of the despicable Dredd Scott decision, so keep that in mind where his loyalties were.
Sorry, but that was hardly the case for impeachment, and there never was an attemp to impeach Lincoln. He won re-election with 90% of the electoral vote in 1864. Congress gave Lincoln approval for martial law in 1863 and retroactively. It was all moot at that point.
Just imagine for a moment what would happen to Merryman today if he were killing US soldiers and cutting communication lines and ripping up railroads in the US. Imagine a guy plotting to take over Washington DC. Terrorist anyone? Gitmo anyone?
Imagine what Southerners today would do with a guy like that. How ironic Southerners forget their own treasonous past.
Among the pro-Confederates in the Maryland militia was Lieutenant John Merryman. He had recruited and trained soldiers for the Confederate Army. After the Baltimore Riot he was involved in cutting telegraph wires and burning railroad bridges.
On May 25, Merryman was arrested by order of Brigadier General William High Keim, USV, and charged with treason and being a commissioned lieutenant in an organization intending armed hostility toward the government, namely the Confederate Army.
The case
Merryman's lawyers appealed to Roger Taney to issue the writ. Taney promptly issued a writ of habeas corpus for Merryman demanding that General George Cadwalader, the commander of Fort McHenry, where Merryman was being held, bring Merryman before him the next day. At this time, Supreme Court Justices sat as circuit court judges, as well. Taney decided to issue the writ while sitting as the circuit court judge for the District of Maryland rather than as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. His reason, he states, was that it would permit Gen. Cadwalader to answer the writ in Baltimore rather than Washington, D.C., and so not have to leave the limits of his military command.
Cadwalader responded to Taney's order by sending a colonel to explain that he had suspended the writ of habeas corpus in Merryman's case. Taney reacted by issuing a writ of attachment for Cadwalader, which ordered a U.S. Marshal to seize him and bring him before the court the following day. The marshal was refused entry into the fort.
In response, Taney ruled that the president can neither suspend habeas corpus nor authorize a military officer to do it, and that military officers cannot arrest people except as ordered by the courts. He noted that, while the marshal had the right to call up the posse comitatus to assist him in seizing Gen. Cadwalader and bringing him before the court, it was probably unwise for him to do so and thus that he would not punish the marshal for failing in his task. He then promised a more lengthy, written ruling within the week and ordered that it be sent to President Lincoln, "in order that he might perform his constitutional duty, to enforce the laws, by securing obedience to the process of the United States."
Taney was politically a partisan Democrat and an opponent of Lincoln. In his written opinion, he raged at length against Lincoln for granting himself easily abused powers. Taney asserted that the president was not authorized to suspend habeas corpus, observing that none of the Kings of England exercised such power.
"These great and fundamental laws, which congress itself could not suspend, have been disregarded and suspended, like the writ of habeas corpus, by a military order, supported by force of arms. Such is the case now before me, and I can only say that if the authority which the constitution has confided to the judiciary department and judicial officers, may thus, upon any pretext or under any circumstances, be usurped by the military power, at its discretion, the people of the United States are no longer living under a government of laws, but every citizen holds life, liberty and property at the will and pleasure of the army officer in whose military district he may happen to be found."
Taney noted in a footnote to the above passage that the United States Declaration of Independence listed making the military power independent of and superior to the civil power as one justification for dissolving political allegiance.The Declaration of Independence states," He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power."
Aftermath
The rest of the Supreme Court had nothing to do with Merryman, and the other two justices from the South, John Catron and James Moore Wayne, acted as Unionists; for instance, Catron's charge to a Saint Louis grand jury, saying that armed resistance to the federal government was treason, was quoted in the New York Tribune of July 14, 1861. On circuit, Catron closely cooperated with military authorities.
Lincoln disregarded the ruling. Lincoln also got an opinion supporting his suspension from Attorney General Bates. It formed the basis for Lincoln's July 4 speech to Congress, in which he rhetorically asked, "Are all the laws, but one, to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?" Lincoln subsequently expanded the zone within which the writ was suspended.
After reconvening, Congress failed to pass a bill favored by Lincoln to sanction his suspensions,and several more district and circuit court rulings affirmed Taney's opinion. Lincoln rendered these cases moot on February 14, 1862, when he issued an order releasing almost all political prisoners on parole.
In response to opposition to conscription, however, Lincoln again suspended habeas corpus six months later, this time throughout the entire country.
The passage of the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act in March 1863 ended the controversy, at least temporarily, by authorizing the suspension of habeas corpus upon Congress's authority rather than on the president's authority.
The Merryman decision is still among the best-known Civil War-era court cases and it is one of Taney's most famous opinions, alongside the Dred Scott case. Its legal argument holding that Congress alone may suspend the writ is noted for reiterating the opinion of John Marshall and the court in Ex parte Bollman and was recently restated by the Supreme Court in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.
And Lincoln did ultimately get his congressional approval for martial law with the passage of Habeus Corpus Act of 1863, and it did indemnify the President from his prior actions suspending habeus when the Civil War first broke out. No case for impeachment.
Its still debated on whether or not they had the power to suspend Habeas Corpus. Again, over stepping the constitution. Nationalizing the rail roads, against the constitution.
Lincoln had an extraordinary situation to contend with, but he broke federal law to maintain the union. There was a way to not have the Civil War, but northern business interests weren't in favor, as well as many large slave industry owners in the south.
Its still debated on whether or not they had the power to suspend Habeas Corpus. Again, over stepping the constitution. Nationalizing the rail roads, against the constitution.
Lincoln had an extraordinary situation to contend with, but he broke federal law to maintain the union. There was a way to not have the Civil War, but northern business interests weren't in favor, as well as many large slave industry owners in the south.
It was about money, not freedom.
You do realize that was not the only time Habeus Corpus has been suspended in the US. Bush suspended Habeus Corpus. Lincoln had the whole of the United States at stake, and the vast, vast majority of historians think he did what was necessary.
Secession wasn't legal, and it required extraordinary measures to deal with. As the Founding Father Madison stated, nullification and secession were twin pillars of heresy and were poisonous. Revolution was the only way out, and that was exactly what secession was.
The Confederate flag was the battle flag of secession, and Madison would have considered it heresy and poisonous. No loyal or patriotic American should be flying that flag.
You do realize that was not the only time Habeus Corpus has been suspended in the US. Bush suspended Habeus Corpus. Lincoln had the whole of the United States at stake, and the vast, vast majority of historians think he did what was necessary.
Secession wasn't legal, and it required extraordinary measures to deal with. As the Founding Father Madison stated, nullification and secession were twin pillars of heresy and were poisonous. Revolution was the only way out, and that was exactly what secession was.
The Confederate flag was the battle flag of secession, and Madison would have considered it heresy and poisonous. No loyal or patriotic American should be flying that flag.
Lincoln was the first. Bush used Lincoln as precedent. But it was illegal, in my mind it still is.
As far as him keeping the union together, seems to me he threw the baby out with the bath water.
Lincoln was the first. Bush used Lincoln as precedent. But it was illegal, in my mind it still is.
Illegal in your own mind. Thankfully you are not the end all and be all of constitutional authority in this country.
Suspension of Habeus Corpus is allowed during times of invasion or rebellion.
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.
Doesn't get any more clear than that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
As far as him keeping the union together, seems to me he threw the baby out with the bath water.
Then obviously you prefer some fantasy Union that never existed. Not many Americans would want that Union. Again, you must be okay with states passing laws restricting the rights of minorities or "others", banning speech, instituting state religions, etc, etc. The Bill of Rights applies to all govt action today because of the Civil War. Thank God for that.
Other than that, this Union is the same one as before 1860. The United States laws passed by Congress were supreme over state law prior to 1860 and after 1860. That is what bothers you. You want your state of TN to be supreme. Well it isn't. In fact, according to Madison your state is only an intermediary between the ultimate sovereign which is the people of all the US, and the Fed Govt. Your state is not sovereign over the Fed Govt, and never was once the US Constitution became the law of the land.
Lincoln was the first. Bush used Lincoln as precedent. But it was illegal, in my mind it still is.
As far as him keeping the union together, seems to me he threw the baby out with the bath water.
You have an interesting take on the country you live in. I recall a post of yours extolling the virtues of the Fed Govt pursuing a huge program on par with the Apollo moon landings. You said you wanted to see the Govt take on a huge project like that for the good of the nation. Seems rather conflicted. On the one hand, you prefer a Union where the Fed Govt has no power, and does virtually only things that states allow it, and on the other you want grand national undertakings by a large, well funded government central govt. Which is it?
Illegal in your own mind. Thankfully you are not the end all and be all of constitutional authority in this country.
Suspension of Habeus Corpus is allowed during times of invasion or rebellion.
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.
Doesn't get any more clear than that.
Then obviously you prefer some fantasy Union that never existed. Not many Americans would want that Union. Again, you must be okay with states passing laws restricting the rights of minorities or "others", banning speech, instituting state religions, etc, etc. The Bill of Rights applies to all govt action today because of the Civil War. Thank God for that.
Other than that, this Union is the same one as before 1860. The United States laws passed by Congress were supreme over state law prior to 1860 and after 1860. That is what bothers you. You want your state of TN to be supreme. Well it isn't. In fact, according to Madison your state is only an intermediary between the ultimate sovereign which is the people of all the US, and the Fed Govt. Your state is not sovereign over the Fed Govt, and never was once the US Constitution became the law of the land.
Habeas Corpus
habeas corpus n. Law A writ issued to bring a party before a court to prevent unlawful restraint. [<Med. Lat., you should have the body] Source: AHD
The basic premise behind habeas corpus is that you cannot be held against your will without just cause. To put it another way, you cannot be jailed if there are no charges against you. If you are being held, and you demand it, the courts must issue a writ of habeas corpus, which forces those holding you to answer as to why. If there is no good or compelling reason, the court must set you free. It is important to note that of all the civil liberties we take for granted today as a part of the Bill of Rights, the importance of habeas corpus is illustrated by the fact that it was the sole liberty thought important enough to be included in the original text of the Constitution.
From your link, above.
No, it was never meant to be suspended, ever. It was written into the bill of rights, which can not be restricted by a President even during times of war.
Thats the point, Lincoln broke the law, to save the union. Which, as I said, is like throwing the baby out with the bath water.
And yes, while I understand that the world of the 21st century is not like the world of the 18th and 19th, I believe that we should maintain a limited federal government when possible. I believe more rights should be given back to the states. Let the federal government regulate interstate commerce, but not intrastate commerce. Let them focus on large projects that help the union, like the Apollo program, or buying all of the land west of the Mississippi that the French owned.
But for the Republican party and Lincoln to write a law which over writes rights granted in the first 10 amendments to the constitution is breaking the law, and was grounds for impeachment. But there was no one left to impeach Lincoln, because most of the Democrats left when the war broke out.
Whether we like it or not, the past has consequences today. The federal government was far more restricted before the 14th amendment was passed, and before the Civil War was fought. After that, we have been counties, not states.
Yes he did break the law as did Congress. Congress is not allowed by the Constitution to pass ex post facto laws. And No, no one can be justified, by plan or design, in breaking a law. Particularly a holder of public office who must utter an oath to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes and No
