Suspension of Civil Liberties

[cash]

Neil,

Sorry it took so long to get back to you. I've been a bit behind in my reading. I thought Rushing's essay on free expression was very thought-provoking and provided a perspective I had not previously considered. I'm not sure how far along I'll go with him on that, though, considering Lovejoy was murdered by a mob in Alton, Illinois. Rushing didn't discuss the demographics of the mob, but I think I will need some evidence it was made up of southerners before I will accept more of Rushing's thesis. But the essay was a good contribution to the discussion.

The middle two essays, I'm sorry to say, I found trite. Not your fault, but I don't think they added much to the discussion. They were marked by a very superficial knowledge of the events and the time period, and in some cases were flat out wrong. I was especially disappointed in the second essay, as it made pretensions of being a scholarly work but in fact was almost completely lacking in scholarly merit. I don't know who Ms. Tucker is or what her qualifications are, but her essay read like a 9th grader's term paper.

Dr. Kempf's paper was interesting, but I'm frankly a bit skeptical of a doctor diagnosing a patient who died almost 140 years ago. He has no vital signs or other measurements to go by, so I wonder how accurate he can be. I think it's a keeper, though, and good for future reference.

Thanks for providing these.

Regards,
Cash

[unionblue]

DJ,

Ole has asked us to keep the "CSA Constitution did not permit Secession" thread clear and I thought your post there was too good to go to waste.

So I thought I would repost here in this thread, which seems to be more on target with your sentiments & questions to me contained within.

Here goes:

DJ: Hi Union Blue, I just got through moving so I'm still boxed up as the painters work.

Hope you get settled in without too much trouble.


DJ: I did however find this one on the net:

"Constitutional Problems under Lincoln," James G. Randall, 1951, Urbana: University of Illinois Press:


Yes, I've read Mr. Randall's book before. You say you found it on the net? Do you mean you can read the entire book at a specific website or that you found it for sale and bought it from a website? If this book is online, could you provide the website address to me? I'm sure the members here would like it also and appreciate it.


DJ: "Among the unconstitutional and dictatorial acts performed by Lincoln were initiating and conducting a war by decree for months without the consent or advice of Congress; declaring martial law; confiscating private property; suspending habeas corpus; conscripting the railroads and censoring telegraph lines; imprisoning as many as 30,000 Northern citizens without trial; deporting a member of Congress, Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio, after Vallandigham - a fierce opponent of the Morrill tariff--protested imposition of an income tax at a Democratic Party meeting in Ohio; and shutting down hundreds of Northern newspapers."


DJ, I'm sorry to say that much of the above paragraph sounds like it comes from a book called, The Real Lincoln, by Thomas DiLorenzo. The reason I say this I cannot recall this exact passage from Randall's book going from my memory when I read it. Could you please provide the website where you found this quoted paragraph?


DJ: 30,000 held without trial. Hundreds of newspapers closed. Deporting a member of Congress!

Not sure how Lincoln Lovers can justify that, Union Blue!

We "Lincoln Lovers" don't have to, DJ. Just provide a list of 30,000 Northern citizens who were arrested and held without trial and I'll believe the charge. Just provide the names and reason of the "hundreds of newspapers closed." And while you have provided an incident based in historical fact, under WHAT circumstances was a Member of Congress deported and how and why did Lincoln get involved?

Now a few more questions for you, DJ. Have you read any other books on the subject of Lincoln and "constitutional problems" under his administration? Are you aware of the book, The Fate of Liberty: Abraham Lincoln and Civil Liberties, by Mark E. Neely, Jr? Or Lincoln's Constitution, by Daniel Farber?

All may not be as it seems you would like it to be. Even James G. Randall, in the book you mention above, concluded that

"one may read [here], as it were, the President's mental struggling at the time the decision was taken (the suspension of habeas corpus). In this remarkable document may be seen the clearest indication that the appearance of military dictatorship was a matter of deep concern to the nation's war chief and that his action was determined by what he believed to be the imperative demands of the actual situation."

Doesn't sound like Randall is calling Lincoln much of anything, and frankly if one reads Randall's book, he comes out in favor of Lincoln and is not detrimental in his book. And his book was originally published in 1926.

As for your figure, "30,000 held without trial, I offer this from the book, The Fate of Liberty, by Mr. Neely, published in 1991, Neely documents his search for proof of the actual number if citizens subject. The funny thing is, Randall states in his book the number of civilian arrests numbered 13,535, based on his research in the 1920s. Now why do you suppose your quote claims him stating a figure of "30,000?"

Neely has this to say about researching the actual numbers of civilians arrested under Lincoln:

"It is impossible today to verify the 38,000 figure from its original source or to duplicate the work of Ainsworth's (War Department) clerks or Davis's. The bureau from which the earliest figure derived was abolished. Likewise, the position of commissary general of prisoners, from whose records Ainsworth said he had derived his figure (13,535), had been abolished in 1867 and the record had been turned over to the Prisoner of War Division of the adjutant generals's office. They now apparently constitute Record Group 249 in the National Archives. They contain a few fragmentary rolls of civilian prisoners but nothing that could amount to 13,535 names, and, more important, nothing that could possibly be mistaken for a complete listing of civilian prisoners from the Civil War. The largest extant number of lists of civilian prisoners are now located in the Union provost marshal's files in the Confederate Records. These chaotic and fragmentary records terminate in 1867, the same date as the abolition of the position of commissary general of prisoners and that suggests that the Union Provost Marshal's File of Papers Relating to Two or More Civilians may once have been part of the records of the office of the commissary general of prisoners. The War Department transferred them at some unspecified time into Record Group 109, described as Confederate Records, apparently because the prison records contained information on Confederate sympathizers."

So, DJ, where again did you get this figure of 30,000 from? I would really like to go to the website and see who actually wrote this quote. Because he/she got it wrong and misquoted Mr. Randall.

DJ: Which brings us to the core of the question, no one has asked yet, doesn't it? Pro Lincoln historians brush off any criticism of Lincoln's abuse of the law, Constitution and Bill of Rights by saying we were at war.

DJ, again, the above sounds like a quote right off of LewRockwell.com or by Thomas DiLorenzo, who couldn't write an accurate account of the Civil War and Lincoln if a gun was held to his head. Is this you or is this what you took down from such a site as I have mentioned?

Plus, if it is you or suspected website trash, the statement simply isn't true and you have provided such in your quote above. Randall DID question Lincoln's actions and so have other authors and historians. Problem is to those who wish different, its not very fertile ground to prove Lincoln a dictator.

DJ: It seems to me the foundation of those documents is that all humans (except for four million black slaves, which seems to be constantly overlooked) are BORN with, not granted, these rights. The Royal system is based on granting people rights based on the whim of people genetically granted power at birth. Ours has the government answer to us.
Well, at least that was the dream at one time.

Having been in the military and had the distinct pleasure at serving in other countries with varying forms of government, I can assure you, the dream is intact and very much alive and well in present-day American.

DJ: I am sure there were people caught up in the cracks in the South- but as they don't number in the hundreds to the thousands, no comparison.

Sorry, DJ, but if you start at the beginning of this thread, you will see the South had no problem with arresting people without benefit of legal counsul or without trial. How many people were arrested in such a manner? Hundreds for sure, thousands, maybe. Confederate Records, as described above, are lost, fragmentary, etc., but the South did do such. Check out the book, Southern Rights: Political Prisoners and the Myth of Confederate Constitutionalism.

DJ: The Constitution and Bill of Rights - why do so many Lincoln supporters (Thank you, DJ, MUCH better than "Lincoln Lovers."} think its OK to put them on the backburner during times of war or change?

Because it happens all the time. Ever here of the phrase, "in war the law is silent?" Do you think that life and the social order remain the same in war as they do in peace? Reminds me of the actual events during the attack on Pearl Harbor when US soldiers were desperately trying to get ammunition for their weapons and the supply sergeant wouldn't open the arms room without a signed order from the company commander who was on pass in town. The situation had changed somewhat and peacetime procedures were no longer approbriate. The soldiers pushed supply sergeant out of the way and broke into the arms room and began firing back at Japanese planes who were straffing them.

Both Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson said that in times of peril it would be stupid to follow the law as in time of peace, especially if that law was about to be overwhelmed and destroyed by enemies.

DJ: What exactly are we fighting for when we remove those items from the equation?

Survival?

DJ: Lincoln's draft resulted in:

Lincoln's draft Emancipation Proclamation or the draft as in conscripting men into the army? With what follows, I'm going to assume the EP.

DJ: The Confederate War, Gary Gallagher, 1998, Cambridge, Mass.: Havard University Press:
"The Emancipation Proclamation caused a desertion crisis in the United States Army. At least 200,000 Northern soldiers deserted; another 120,000 evaded conscription; and another 90,000 Northern men fled to Canada to evade the draft, while thousands more hid in the mountains of central Pennsylvania 'where they lay beyond the easy reach of enrolling officer."

Now I have you, DJ. The above is a direct quote from the book, The Real Lincoln, by Thomas DiLorenzo. And it is all untrue. DiLorenzo has taken Gary Gallagher out of context and the quote is not to be found in his book, The Confederate War. If you don't believe me, go check the book out of the library and look for it. It's not there. Also, when old Tom makes the statement that 200,000 Northern soldiers deserted because of the EP, you realize that he is giving the ENTIRE number of Union desertions that took place for the ENTIRE LENGTH of the Civil War? You cannot base your arguments on quicksand, DJ, as I have informed you before. By using such crap, you come across as not being willing to dig up the facts for yourself and seem even more willing to let others think for you. The very thing you accuse "Lincoln Lovers" of doing.

DJ: These figures make the same figures of all wars in the 20th Century and into the 21st Century that we have fought in plae in comparison.

And if I made up figures out of thin air or simply pulled them out-of-context as DiLorenzo does, I can do the same with any 20th Century war. The man's lying to you, DJ.

DJ: Apparently many yankess weren't buying what Honest Abe was selling.

I'm certainly not buying what DiLorenzo is selling. The man wouldn't know a historical fact if it bit his a**. And I must say, DJ, I have no idea what you are buying or what you personally believe, as you seem to parrot other people's lies and misquoted 21st Century garbage.

DJ: Far more than protested in WW I, 2, Korea, Nam, Iraq, etc.

Again, how do we know when the man talking for you is presenting out-of-context quotes and data posted incorrectly and with major spin? The fact is we don't and you don't either.

DJ: Lincoln's abuse of the rights of men was matched only by his double-talk:
The Glittering Illusion: English Sympathy for the Southern Confederacy, Sheldon Vanauken, 1989, Washington, DC: Regnery/Gateway.

"...So Englishmen saw it. Lincoln's insincerity was regarded as proven by two things: his earlier denial of any lawful right or wish to free the slaves; and, especially, his not freeing the slaves in 'loyal' Kentucky and other United States areas or even in Confederate areas occupied by United States troops, such as New Orleans."

DJ, honestly, my first instinct is that Englishmen and England can kiss my b*** when it comes to events in our own nation. My second one is again, to wonder, who stated this in what context, as I see you seem to be pulling all of this off some LewRockwell site with DiLorenzo as the main contributer. It don't fly. It is a hundred ton boulder and no matter how many paper wings you glue to it in the form of out-of-context quotes, misquotes of authors and their own works, etc., you push this baby off a cliff, it's gonna drop like the rock it is.

Try reading some history, please, REAL history, and not a modern-day, libertarian-based author with a 21st century agenda.

And at least be honest enough to include the website URL when you post such dreck. It will save you time typing someone else's opinion.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[unionblue]

DJ,

I'm going to try something I have not done for many years.

I'm going to try and help you with your viewpoint on Lincoln and the Civil War.

First off, I want to make very plain my feelings about your post that you did in the "CSA Constitution did not permit secession thread."

In my own opinion, you were basically dishonest in the way you posted it.

You began your post with the words:

"I did however find this on the net: "Constitutional Problems under Lincoln," James G. Randall, 1951, Urbana: University of Illinois Press:"

You then deliberately gave the impression that your entire post was based on Randall's work or that the rest of the post was your own words.

DJ, that is simply dishonest.

What you should have done is said is "I got this from the following website" and then posted the website address. It would have been more honest and direct. You could have even placed in quotes the words and phrases that was from Thomas DiLorenzo or from the book, The Real Lincoln, or whatever online source you were quoting from.

I'm going to clue you in on something. A lot of us here at the board have been here a long, LONG time and we have covered a LOT of ground. You should not always assume we don't know something before you leap off a historical/personal cliff.

We here at this board have discussed, in minute exhausting detail, Prof. DiLorenzo and his works along with the issues you bring up concerning President Lincoln and the US Constitution. Many times.

I suggest you take the time, when you have it, to go back through all of the threads here on the Secession and Politics portion of this forum and check out the numerous topics discussed therein. This procedure is called 'research' and frankly, it's pretty much expected if you want to be taken as a serious player here.

I also wish to take this time to encourage you to expand your reading horizons. LewRockwell.com and Thomas DiLorenzo are not the beginning and ending of all things Civil War. If anything, they are an alternate dimension describing events that never happened on this planet in this time and space.

Take the time to research the sources in such books as DiLorenzo's The Real Lincoln. I'll even help a bit and provide you with this website that already does so.

THOMAS J. DiLORENZO'S "THE REAL LINCOLN" --- a rebuttal.

http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/dilorenz.htm

And when you're through, don't take the websites word, and for God's sake, don't take my word. Get off your chair, go to your local library and check out some of the books that DiLorenzo uses as sources for his quotes and claims within his book. See for yourself if he's telling the truth or not when he says Gallagher says this or Randall said that. I'll live with your judgement on such. At least, it will be truely your own, if you do go and find out.

But I would suggest don't to do what you did above in your previous post. It screams laziness, sloppiness, and just a plain, obvious, unwillingness to do any work of your own to provide yourself with a true, personal opinion of events during the Civil War.

I would very much to find out what you really think and debate on what you think the real issues are with Lincoln, the Constitution, the right of secession, slavery, etc. You seem like a person with intelligence and guts and the ability to engage in honest, open, debate.

But frankly, you're going to have to work a bit to prove that you care enough to find out about the actual history of events before you can engage in serious debate here.

I'll be here if you finally decide to do so.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[unionblue]

To All,

DJPyschomike has made the following statement when he compared civilian arrests in the North as compared to the South:

DJ: "I am sure there were people caught up in the cracks in the South - but they don't number in the hundreds to the thousands, no comparison."

From the book, Southern Rights: Political Prisoners and the Myth of Confederate Constitutionalism, by Mark E. Neely Jr.:

INTRODUCTION

"...What made the book possible was the discovery of records of 4,108 civilian prisoners held by military authority in the Confederacy. There were many more political prisoners than these, but I was able to locate records by name for only 4,108 in some five years of searching. To find even those required considerable effort, as the logical sources of information--the records of southern military prisons captured by Union armies after the war and now housed in the National Archives--in fact contained only fragmentary lists. More complete records of the prisoners lay elsewhere, improbably filed and, as explained in chapter 5, not easily identified.

Knowledge of the existence of thousands of political prisoners now reverses our basic understanding of the Confederate cause. Instead of protecting the southern rights and liberty to which politicians had extravagantly pledged their society before the war, the Confederate government curtailed many civil liberties and imprisoned troublesome citizens..."

Hundreds? Certainly. Thousands? At least over four thousand, that we know about.

From chapter 5 of the book, entitled, GHOSTS OF THE DEAD HABEAS CORPUS, pg. 87-88:

"...Yet a phrase commonly appearing next to the name of a civilian prisoner in Confederate records was "Union man." The beliefs of such prisoners obviously mattered. There was never a moment in Confederate history when pro-Union opinions could be held without fear of government restraint. Naturally, such opinions were more dangerous near the borders and active military fronts than in the interior, but nowhere were dissenting beliefs secure."

By the hundreds and by the thousands.

Unionblue

[trice]

Originally Posted by unionblue

To All,

DJPyschomike has made the following statement when he compared civilian arrests in the North as compared to the South:



From the book, Southern Rights: Political Prisoners and the Myth of Confederate Constitutionalism, by Mark E. Neely Jr.:

INTRODUCTION

"...What made the book possible was the discovery of records of 4,108 civilian prisoners held by military authority in the Confederacy. There were many more political prisoners than these, but I was able to locate records by name for only 4,108 in some five years of searching. To find even those required considerable effort, as the logical sources of information--the records of southern military prisons captured by Union armies after the war and now housed in the National Archives--in fact contained only fragmentary lists. More complete records of the prisoners lay elsewhere, improbably filed and, as explained in chapter 5, not easily identified.

Knowledge of the existence of thousands of political prisoners now reverses our basic understanding of the Confederate cause. Instead of protecting the southern rights and liberty to which politicians had extravagantly pledged their society before the war, the Confederate government curtailed many civil liberties and imprisoned troublesome citizens..."

Hundreds? Certainly. Thousands? At least over four thousand, that we know about.

From chapter 5 of the book, entitled, GHOSTS OF THE DEAD HABEAS CORPUS, pg. 87-88:

"...Yet a phrase commonly appearing next to the name of a civilian prisoner in Confederate records was "Union man." The beliefs of such prisoners obviously mattered. There was never a moment in Confederate history when pro-Union opinions could be held without fear of government restraint. Naturally, such opinions were more dangerous near the borders and active military fronts than in the interior, but nowhere were dissenting beliefs secure."

By the hundreds and by the thousands.

Unionblue

I don't have a reference handy, but several weeks ago I stumbled across a study of trials of civilians under martial law during the Civil War. The Union ones were largely where you would expect (largely in MO-KY-MD and Washington DC plus VA and TN). But interestingly enough, about 38% of all the military tribunals held under martial law for civilians were held by the Confederates. When you adjust for where and how the war was fought, that seems like both sides used it about evenly.

Tim

[unionblue]

Tim,

Precisely my point.

DJ and others seem pretty willing to point fingers North to Lincoln but seem almost unwilling to acknowledge the idea of looking South and seeing reality.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[trice]

Originally Posted by unionblue

Tim,

Precisely my point.

DJ and others seem pretty willing to point fingers North to Lincoln but seem almost unwilling to acknowledge the idea of looking South and seeing reality.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

AN ACT to authorize the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus in certain cases.

The Congress of the Confederate Slates of America do enact, That during the present invasion of the Confederate States the President shall have power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in such cities, towns, and military districts as shall, in his judgment, be in such danger of attack by the enemy as to require the declaration of martial law for their effective defense.

Approved February 27, 1862.

=====
GENERAL ORDERS No. 31.
ADJT. AND INSP. GENERAL'S OFFICE,
Richmond, March 10, 1864.

I. The following act of Congress, "for the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus in certain cases," with the instructions of the War Department, is published for the information of all concerned:

AN ACT to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in certain cases.

Whereas, the Constitution of the Confederate States of America provides, in article first, section nine, paragraph three, that "the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when, in case of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it;" and whereas, the power of suspending the privilege of said writ, as recognized in said article first, is vested solely in the Congress, which is the exclusive judge of the necessity of such suspension; and whereas, in the opinion of the Congress, the public safety requires the suspension of said writ in the existing case of the invasion of these States by the armies of the United States; and whereas, the President has asked for the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, and informed Congress of conditions of public danger which render the suspension of the writ a measure proper for the public defence, against invasion and insurrection: Now, therefore,

The Congress of the Confederate States of America do enact, That during the present invasion of the Confederate States, the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus be, and the same is hereby, suspended; but such suspension shall apply only to the cases of persons arrested or detained by order of the President, Secretary of War, or the general officer commanding the Trans-Mississippi Military Department, by the authority and under the control of the President. It is hereby declared that the purpose of Congress in the passage of this act is to provide more effectually for the public safety, by suspending the writ of habeas corpus in the following cases, and no others:

First.--Of treason, or treasonable efforts or combinations to subvert the Government of the Confederate States.

Second.--Of conspiracies to overthrow the Government, or conspiracies to resist the lawful authorities of the Confederate States.

Third.--Of combining to assist the enemy, or of communicating intelligence to the enemy, or giving him aid and comfort.

Fourth.--Of conspiracies, preparations and attempts to incite servile insurrection.

Fifth.--Of desertions or encouraging desertions, of harboring deserters, and of attempts to avoid military service: Provided, That in cases of palpable wrong and oppression by any subordinate officer, upon any party who does not legally owe military service, his superior officer shall grant prompt relief, to the oppressed party, and the subordinate shall be dismissed from office.

Sixth.--Of spies and other emissaries of the enemy.

Seventh.--Of holding correspondence or intercourse with the enemy, without necessity and without the permission of the Confederate States.

Eighth.--Of unlawful trading with the enemy, and other offenses against the laws of the Confederate States, enacted to promote their success in the war.

Ninth.--Of conspiracies or attempts to liberate prisoners of war held by the Confederate States.

Tenth.--Of conspiracies, or attempts or preparations to aid the enemy.

Eleventh.--Of persons advising or inciting others to abandon the Confederate cause, or to resist the Confederate States, or to adhere to the enemy.

Twelfth.--Of unlawfully burning, destroying or injuring, or attempting to burn, destroy or injure, any bridge or railroad, or telegraphic line of communication, or other property, with the intent of aiding the enemy.

Thirteenth.--Of treasonable designs to impair the military power of the Government, by destroying or attempting to destroy, the vessels or arms, or munitions of war, or arsenals, foundries, workshops or other property of the Confederate States.

SEC. 2. The President shall cause proper officers to investigate the cases of all persons so arrested or detained, in order that they may be discharged, if improperly detained, unless they can be speedily tried in the due course of law.

SEC. 3. That during the suspension aforesaid, no military or other officer shall be compelled, in answer to any writ of habeas corpus, to appear in person, or to return the body of any person or persons detained by him by the authority of the President, Secretary of War, or the general officer commanding the Trans-Mississippi Department; 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, for any of the causes hereinbefore specified, under the authority aforesaid, further proceedings under the writ of habeas corpus shall immediately cease and remain suspended so long as this act shall continue in force.

SEC. 4. This act shall continue in force for ninety days after the next meeting of Congress, and no longer.

A true copy:
JAMES M. MATTHEWS,
Law Clerk,
Approved February 15, 1864.
=====
Tim