Lincoln's First Sixty Days

Hinkle,

Yes! By all means. Please educate me. Would you please tell me in which post you answered my direct questions? If you did answer me, either it was in code or I'm stupid, because, though you invite me to read your posts and I've done so (painful as it is), I cannot find it. As to your earlier reference admonishing me to not "take the moral high road," I apologize, I did not know it was your private delusional domain. Forgive me for trespassing.

As to your comparison of Davis owning slaves, if Davis was directly connected to cartels monopolizing the slave industry, to the detriment and exclusion of other states, and using US tax dollars to fund it, then I'd say there was a comparison. Otherwise it is just an inept analogy.



YMOS
tommy

[dawna]

I've enjoyed the responses and perspectives this weekend...the debate rages on!

As I continue to study President Lincoln's first 60 days in office, I find that some of his actions make perfect sense and seem well within the Constitution, while others are very conflicting.

On July 4, 1861, Mr. Lincoln's message to the special session of Congress offered a full explanation of his actions surrounding Fort Sumter. Mr. Lincoln defended everything that he had done to sustain the Union, and openly blamed Southerners for beginning the conflict. I understand that President Lincoln consistently maintained that the conflict between the North and the South was not a war between the government of the United States and that of the Confederate States of America. If President Lincoln "defined" the war, it would acknowledge that the Union was not a perpetual one and that secession was constitutional. I honestly don't see that Lincoln had any other choice.

Given President Lincoln's views of the war as a "domestic insurrection" and with regards to the blockade that the President imposed on Southern ports, wouldn't this recognize the Confederacy as a "belligerent?"

I'm confused regarding who has the actual power to suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus. Since President Lincoln did this on many occasions, my belief was that only Congress had the right to suspend this Writ? If it is "silent or open to interpretation," how then can this argument be used against the South's belief of a "silent right to secede?

Dawna

[bokscar]

Dawna, you are correct in looking at the argument from the viewpoint of those you are studying. Lincon had a viewpoint and Davis had a viewpoint. Those viewpoints were diametrically opposed, there could be no synthesis of the core assumptions, undergirding those viewpoints.
When an argument over viewpoints devolves into conflict, who wins may not determine which viewpoint was actually correct, but it will determine which had the better defender.

[mobile_96]

Dawna,
In the same Special Session you refer to, Lincoln also said:
``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,'' is equivalent to a provision---is a provision---that such privilege may be suspended when, in cases of rebellion, or invasion, the public safety does require it. It was decided that we have a case of rebellion, and that the public safety does require the qualified suspension of the privilege of the writ which was authorized to be made. Now it is insisted that Congress, and not the Executive, is vested with this power. But the Constitution itself, is silent as to which, or who, is to exercise the power; and as (pg431) the provision was plainly made for a dangerous emergency, it cannot be believed the framers of the instrument intended, that in every case, the danger should run its course, until Congress could be called together; the very assembling of which might be prevented, as was intended in this case, by the rebellion.
No more extended argument is now offered; as an opinion, at some length, will probably be presented by the Attorney General. Whether there shall be any legislation upon the subject, and if any, what, is submitted entirely to the better judgment of Congress.
In relation to this part of his speech I found the following....
To Edward Bates:
May 30. 1861
My Dear Sir
Will you do the favor to confer with Mr. Johnson and be preparing to present the argument for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Very respectfully yours, A. LINCOLN

The Honorable I concur
Atty Genl. William H. Seward
Annotation
[1] The result of Reverdy Johnson's conference with Bates is not indicated in any immediate communication from Bates, but on July 5, 1861, the attorney general returned a twenty-six-page opinion, the gist of which was that if suspension was understood to mean `` . . . a repeal of all power to issue the writ . . . none but Congress can do it. But if we are at liberty to understand the phrase to mean, that, in case of a great and dangerous rebellion, like the present, the public safety requires the arrest and confinement of persons implicated in that rebellion, I, as freely, declare the opinion that the President has lawful power to suspend the privilege of persons arrested under such circumstances.'' Collected Works of Lincoln, Vol 4, pg 390
I would think, that if, Congress were positive that Lincoln had overstepped his legal limits, they would have jumped on him, revoking his actions on the writ when he first used it in Maryland,and possibly even arresting and impeaching him.
But they didn't. In fact, on a bill to raise salaries for soldiers they attached the following:
"It also directs that all the acts, proclamations, and orders, of the President of the United States, after the 4th of March, 1861, respecting the Army and Navy of the United States, and calling out or relating to the militia or volunteers from the States, are hereby approved and in all respects and made valid to the same intent and with the same effects as if they had been issued and done under the previous express authority and direction of the Congress of the United States."
Aug 6, 1861 The congressional Globe pg 457.
(Among these orders were directives to arrest various people
under the repeal of the writ of habeas corpus in Maryland.)
More to follow,
Chuck in Il.

[dawna]

Thank you Charles. It would seem that President Lincoln's actions regarding the April 19th riots in Baltimore (I originally thought Lincoln had broken the Constitution) were legal, and necessary. Wasn't it risky/provocative though for President Lincoln to allow Federal troops to pass through Baltimore enroute to Washington, given the death threats he'd received from that city before his Inauguration?

Dawna

[mobile_96]

Again, in 1863 from Thirty-Seventh Congress, Sess. III, (Ch. 80,81. 1863 pg. 755):
March 3, 1863
Chap. LXXXI--An Act relating to Habeas Corpus, and regulating Judicial Proceedings in Certain Cases.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled, That, during the present rebellion, the President of the United States, whenever, in his judgment, the public safety may require it, is authorized to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in any case throughout the United States, or any part thereof.
And whenever and wherever the said privilege shall be suspended, as forsaid, no military or other officer shall be compelled, in answer to any writ of habeas corpus, to return the body of any person or persons detained by him by authority of the President: but upon the certificate, under oath, of the officer having charge of any one so detained that such person is detained by him as a prisoner under authority of the President, further porceedings under the writ of haveas corpus shallbe suspended by the judge or court having issued, the said writ, so long as said suspension by the President shall remain in force, and said rebellion continue."
Again, if the Congress thought Lincoln not legal, why re-issue this.

Maybe no one considered that armed troops would be bothered. Just a quick thought here.

[unionblue]

Friends,

As you can see by a couple of posts of mine, I am back and ready to do battle once again for the Union cause. I wish to take this time to thank all of you who wished me well during my medical problems and absence from this board.

Now, to business.

Tommy, I have noted in your post of Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 02:40 pm, you state that "it has been acknowledged that somewhere in the neighborhood of 300 newspapers were closed, am I not correct?"

I am of the opinion you are not correct any more than when you pass along the tired, oft repeated phrase "He never charged many of the close to 30k people that he had arrested."

Both of the figures you give are suspect and again are often repeated on various, below the Mason-Dixion border web sites that deal mainly in passion and not historical fact.

I tried a recent web search, looking for the number of papers that were actually closed by Lincoln or by members of his administration/military, and have come up with a number as low as 100 papers that were shut-down in the North during the war. The only papers that were actually named to have been shut-down were the New York World, The Journal of Commerce, The Chicago Daily Times and the Philadelphia Evening Journal. No other papers were found by me in a night's search on the inter net.

That is not to say that more were not shut down. But I bring to your attention that the New York World and the Journal of Commerce were shut down for a total of two days and not for the duration of the war. It seems one of the reporters who supplied copy to both papers wrote up a false story about a new, impending 400,000 man draft coming into play in 1864. Without checking with anyone in the government, the editors and publishers of the papers ran the story. The reporter was eventually found out and the papers went back to business.

I have also cause to question you 30k statement as being completely blown out of proportion. According to my own research, less than 900 citizens of the North, in Northern states, were taken as 'political prisoners.' Most of the people put under military arrest without the use of the writ that can be verified by written records from the National Archives come close to the number of 14,000.

Many of these arrests had nothing to do with politics as they were made mainly in the South, directed at suspected active supporters of the rebellion, suspected Rebel soldiers, bush whackers, etc.

The biggest group of arrests that appeared in any way to resemble what most Democrats complained about at the time, the sort that really disturbed historians and civil libertarians, were those that followed August 8, 1862, orders. And those were sincerely meant to enforce conscription rather than stifle dissent--which explains their relaxation in one month's time after most draft quotas had been filled.

As for the for further food for thought on the 'closing' of Northern newspapers, I also found that many were not 'closed' in a physical sense, but were denied the privilege of using the US mails to distribute their wares to the population.

As for the idea that Lincoln crushed dissent by his closure of so many newspapers, pick a web site, such as the Valley of the Shadow web site or any other Civil War era newspaper site, and you will see constant criticism of Lincoln, his administration, his policies, his release of the Emancipation Proclamation, etc., etc. In Northern newspapers alone the man was called everything from a tyrant, dictator, baboon, idiot, simpleton, in fact everything except a good President! The man feared his chances at re-election in 1864! Does this sound like a dictator in total control of his section of the country? Not even close.

And one last note, the South had a much harsher system of control in place on its population and did not in any way hesitate to arrest and hold persons, without trial, it deemed a threat. As many as 4,000 citizens of the South were arrested and held without benefit of trial or the benefit of habeas corpus. The South in no way holds any kind of superior position over Lincoln and the North in this regard as they were also quick to suspend personal liberties at the expense of its citizens in order to further its own war aims. Newspapers there were stifled in their efforts to report the war by having their reporters arrested and held without trail.

Until that time,
Unionblue

(Message edited by Unionblue on September 15, 2004)

Neil,
Glad to see you have returned. I hope all is better? You might notice a drop off of some Southerners right about now. Bill is away on vacation and Thea is in the path of Ivan. So if it is a bit quiet, don't think we are hiding.
Anyway, glad to see you back and on your feet.

YMOS
tommy

[unionblue]

Tommy,

Good to be back and yes, all is a bit better and on the upswing, I hope. As to the drop-off of Southerners, I am sure there are many who support the South still available for the moment. Hal, Katherine, the Grey Ghost, yourself and others. I doubt if it will remain quiet or boring on this board for any length of time.

Sure hope Thea stays safe and dry and out of Ivan's way. Some things are just not impressed by Southern stubbornness or faith in the Cause! Ivan won't care if it wears blue or grey or flies a Confederate Battle Flag or the Stars and Stripes, a truly national weather event.

You got that computer of yours under control yet?

Until that time,
Unionblue

Neil,


Actually my computer is Still messed up. Without exaggerating in the least, it freezes, crashes completely, cuts off and restarts on it's own, 80% of the time when I open anything. Anything at all. For instance, while I write this I Must save it Every sentence. It will crash about 3-5 times between time I start to read a thread and the time I get it posted. Much more if I have to research it much. I have all but given up on any serious research. Only in the most extreme cases will I go in depth. As you might guess this is extremely frustrating for me. But I save websites I think might be of use and save the bookmarks to disc every week or so. I almost have as many as I had before it crashed last time. I’m getting there. And one day, in the future if I can finagle a new PC then I will have plenty to catch up on and places to start.


When I first started on the Civil War boards my primary interest was the battles. It amazes me now how little I have actually discussed about the battles. The politics and the Zeitgeist has been what I have delved into. I have often thought that CW buffs are probably more knowledgeable about the Constitution and constitutional law than just about anyone. Not being able to research does create a sense of frustration and anxiety in me that is maddening. I imagine the day I get a new or working PC I will be like a man hitting the watering hole after crossing the desert. Drinking it all in so fast and greedily.


Like you I hope Thea is safe and will continue to be so. It looks like it will hit her state head on. Mother nature can be really show us just how insignificant we really are, while simultaneously reaffirming us of what is really important in life.

You are right though. There are plenty of bullets flying around in both directions. I’m going to be hunkering down a bit though next few days. Got epidural steroid injection #2 Thursday and it kinda puts a crimp in my day(s) but I expect to stand and pop a cap or two when I see likely targets.



YMOS
tommy