Civil War History - General DiscussionFor Discussions on Civil War Era Personalities, Politics, Issues, Campaigns, Battles, and more. Serious Civil War Discussions Only Please! All other posts will be deleted.
Article 2 section 1
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
President Lincoln, acting alone, suspended the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, one of the most fundamental rights of Anglo-Saxon and American constitutional law. Immediately the Supreme Court acted to constrain the president. Confronted as he was in the Merryman case with a writ, issued against him by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Roger B. Taney, the President did not even acknowledge the writ. He totally ignored the Court. The writ thus fell to the ground without effect. To save the Union, the suspension of habeas corpus continued. President Lincoln ignored the writ of the Supreme Court on the constitutional ground that the President of the United States, given an ultimate threat to the life of the Union must interpret his constitutional duty as he, the chief executive, is given to understand it — not as the Supreme Court, or its Chief Justice, understands it.
Indeed, President Lincoln insisted he violated no law in suspending habeas corpus, and of course he did not; for the Constitution does provide for suspension of habeas corpus under conditions of insurrection or invasion and it does not explicitly give that power to Congress alone. But to those who argued that he 'might' have violated the Constitution, he did reply that his first sworn obligation as President was to preserve the Union, without which there would be no Constitution, no laws to uphold, no further means to establish justice. 'Are all the laws but one to go unexecuted,' he queried, 'and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?' 1
1.Roy P. Basler, editor, The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Volume IV, p. 421-441 (Message to Congress, July 4,1861).
From War for the Union, Vol 1.by Nevins-pg.198-199
"Though generally cooperative, Congress had shown a natural jealousy of its functions. One of the first measures wanted by the Administration was a resolution validating all of Linconln's act, orders and proclamations, including his suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. Because Congress believed that it alone had power to suspend the writ, this ran into heavy opposition. All efforts to carry it failed until the end of the session, when the validation shorn of any mention of habeas corpus, was tacked to a bill increasing the pay of privates, and thus smuggled through." This appeared in the N.Y. Tribune, Aug 6-10, 1861. I am presently trying to find a copy of this resolution.
Lincoln believed he had the mandate of the people to do what was necessary to preserve the Union, and Congress passed a resolution to confer this power, (at least for the duration of the Rebellion).
When reading and studing the Constitution of the United States, you must also consider the Declaration of Independance, it was, and still is, considered to be the 'organic law' of the Nation. Lincoln was, among many others, a firm believer in the Declaration, using it as the basis in his interperation of the Constitution and what could and should, be done in preserving the Union. the treachery of Lincoln and his administration’s actions regarding Sumter.
Sumpter was Federal Property, not State Property, and Lincoln had the right to not only re-supply, but to re-inforce the troops there.
SC was not part of a country, but only a State in rebellion against the Federal Government, which has the right to protect its property, as per the Constitution.
Lincoln, by not going in immediately, and re-inforcing Anderson, or going into SC and taking control of the state government, was trying to take a diplomatic position and allow the SC fire-eaters come to their senses.
Chuck in Il.
Aphillbilly, sorry for the delay.
Stating opinion as fact is a common failing to all on this page, including secessionists, I'm afraid. It's the the nature of the beast.
Providing sources about political theories, as I hope you are aware, is not proof the theory is true. Merely, that you and your source share an opinion concerning that theory.
You and I could trade sources, but to what purpose, if the mind is closed to opposing opinions?
Are you contending that one of the duties of the President of the United States, is Not to help preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States of America?
Please don't try to take the moral high road, the confederate gov't including its president, was well aware that persisting in proclaiming independence would lead to war AND they were well aware that firing on Ft. Sumpter would spark that war. The leaders of the confederacy could just as easily given in and save the country from a bloody civil war as Lincoln could, but they didn't. With cool deliberation and careful calculation, the confederate gov't opted for war. They knew beforehand what would cause war and they did it.
I have long admitted that, although I did not think there was such a thing as a "right" to secede, I was willing to accept that the question was not a settled point and have said there were various legal ways to settle the issue within the Constitution, but that the South deliberately chose war as the means of settlement, which it did.
I hope that you won't mind me briefly jumping in here. No matter how much I read or what I have understood over the years (and I do have the utmost respect for President Lincoln,) I always come back to this one conclusion...Lincoln only did what was expected of any President of the United States...that of protecting the Constitution. Would the people really want a President who thought or acted otherwise?
Dawna, you are exactly right. Lincoln had to constantly remind the South that he was only doing those things required by his office as President (and even forbore other duties to help assuage the fevered imaginations of the southern citizens, if not those of secessionists).
The President had prescribed duties which he was bound to perform, the southern leaders had no prescribed duty to either disrupt the country or break the Constitution.
“Would the people really want a President who thought or acted otherwise?”
Well it was pretty apparent the people in the South did not want him, period.
Also I feel I should remind you that at the time of the CW the States first obligation was to the will of their constituents. Not to the president. Nor the Union. As to what the ‘people’ from the north desired, read era newspapers. The majority of the Northern population said “Let them go and good riddance!” Those newspapers were shut down illegally and in direct violation to the rights of free press. The cornerstone of our bill of rights.
Only by deliberately and calculatingly instigating a situation where the South actually attacked the north, could the president go through with setting aside the rest of the constitution. Would the people want a president that was so Machiavellian he would deliberately orchestrate events to trigger a war? Did he care a hoot what Southern people desired? Did he act in any way whatsoever to avoid conflict? (Much of this reminds me of the tragedy at Waco. We are going to protect and serve and save you. By killing you. Save the children by giving them humanitarian deaths.) As president I will kill you by the hundreds of thousands. I will laugh uproariously at the tales of Sherman’s bummers degradations and deprivations. To ensure the 'Union' and 'save you from yourselves' I will do this as the president. For the ‘people.’
Quebec has been mentioned recently. Say Quebec provided a minimum of 75% of all Canadian federal revenue. Say they also received less that 25% of those revenues for their own use and benefit. Now say that a majority of the revenue would actually be spent on projects that were deliberately calculated to hurt them. They debate, they vote and they secede. I'm the Prime Minister and I then Very deliberately plan a maneuver to instigate a war. I'm satisfied with the result even. On top of that, after 620,000 military casualties, countless thousands of civilians killed and/or murdered (for their own benefit apparently) Dozens of decades of poverty and hardship....
How would I have the moral high ground?
How have saved anything? By buying the killing of everyone who wished to leave?
To simply write off the South’s actions, rights and desires in a vacuum is a dire mistake. Just as it is a mistake to judge anything Lincoln did and forgetting for one second he was a corporate mouthpiece for the railroads.
Mr Hinkle,
Since you refused to answer any questions I have put forth to you I see no reason I should be expected to extend the courtesy to answer your queries. You merely answer my questions with questions. The weakest form of debate barring “Oh Yeah?”
But I will answer your questions in order.
Every Purpose otherwise why are you talking here?
Not at all, but that was not what he was doing.
Good day sir.
Tommy: "As to what the ‘people’ from the north desired, read era newspapers. The majority of the Northern population said “Let them go and good riddance!”
Reading that era's newspapers did not prove what all the people felt, but very positively what the "Owners of the papers felt.'
Also, papers views often reflected on how the war was going, if badly for the Union, they claimed the Union needed to let the Confederacy go, If the war was going well, then editiorals reflected this also, by praising the Presidency and the military leaders.
I know some papers were shut down, but....which ones, for exactly what reason, and for how long? Information I'd like to know and am sure the others here would also.
"Those newspapers were shut down illegally and in direct violation to the rights of free press. The cornerstone of our bill of rights."
Weren't some of these shut down for failing to stop posting military information after being told to stop doing so?? Something legal I believe as in the realm of protecting national security??
"....it is a mistake to judge anything Lincoln did and forgetting for one second he was a corporate mouthpiece for the railroads."
And how was he a corporate mouthpiece for the railroads? I know he did represent railroads in numerous cases in the 1857-59 period, but...... many other lawyers were also involved at the same time. However, he also represented many clients in cases against the railroads, even having to sue them himself,to collect a fee they refused to pay.
Chuck in Il.
Excellent questions and ones I will endeavor to answer in time. Today, though, will not be that time unless it is much later tonight.
Briefly I would say just this: I believe it has been acknowledged that somewhere in the neighborhood of 300 newspapers were closed, am I not correct? Quite a few before the war actually started. Are you demanding the who, when and why of all the closings and arrests? That is extremely difficult to know for sure, since Mr Lincoln suspended more than just the right of Free Press. He never charged many of the close to 30k people that he had arrested. Without formal charges, a public trial judged by their peers and a full legal resolution, there is no comprehensive paper trail, and we will therefore never really know. I know of a few cases, but surely not all of them.
As to some newspapers being shut down for 'military security' etc., I respectfully request sources or links to the information on those cases as well, if you have them. I’’d be very interested in seeing them.
As to Lincoln’’s involvement with the railroad, I REALLY do not wish to have to dredge up all the data on this topic again. I was right in the middle of this discussion when my pc died the first time, back around Halloween of last year. I lost everything. As I hope everyone knows, my pc is currently all but useless. BUT, I’’m not copping out. If you type in ICRR in the CWT search engine, you likely will get a lot of hits regarding his involvement with them. Not all of it is pretty. Also, I believe there was a fair amount of discussion on the now defunct Transcontinental Railroad thread. But his involvement with the railroads over several decades, both as their lawyer fighting against their paying taxes and defending them against damages they did to citizenry, and later as a politician securing monies, was very lengthy both in time and in deeds. One of his first actions after being elected into political office was to lobby for Federal subsides for he railroad. If you really cannot find the info either here or online, I will roll up my sleeves and attempt to recover it from the www.
In Lincoln's own words in an 1854 letter to Brayman of the ICRR,
"An old man from DeWitt
was down here the other day to get me to
bring a suit on this account; but as I had
sold myself out to you I turned him over to
Stuart"
As I had sold myself out to you.......
Says it all really.
YMOS
tommy
ps
Please forgive typos and plain being incoherent. Not one of my better days.
My dear Aphillbilly,
What being a lawyer, among whose clients were railroad companies, has to do with that persons being President, can only be inferred not known. After all, since Jefferson Davis was a slave owner, did his support of Confederacy have more to do with the protection of his personal fortune than states rights? Neither you nor I can be sure, but following your example, I could certainly make that claim with a clear conscience.
Read my posts, I thought I answered your questions, but, being buried in opinions,I could have missed some, please remind me, I will be glad to educate you.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
