Lincoln Creates the First Surveillance State...

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

WJC

Major General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
12,773
I want to point out what was Meade first thoughts when he was the first contact about heading the AoP... He was going to be arrested... Why would Meade think that if he did not feel he was living in a Police state...
Maybe because he considered himself in "open war" with his commander, Joseph Hooker following the defeat at Chancellorsville.
<John G. Selby, Meade: The Price of Command, 1863-1865. (Kent, OH: Kent State University Press, 2018), pp. 13-14.>
Nowhere in Meade's papers or in any biographies is there even the slightest hint that he feared Lincoln's "Police state". Of course, every reader can allow his/her imagination to develop even the wildest fantasies.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
29,997
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
To All,

For further information that would tend to put this thread (and it's title) in a more historical context, one might consider checking out the following books from your local public library also.

Lincoln's Constitution, by Daniel Farber.

Lincoln & The Court, by Brian McGinty.

Lincoln And Chief Justice Taney: Slavery, Secession, and the President's War Powers, by James F. Simon.

Sincerely,
Unionblue
 
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
6,835
Location
About 47 miles Northwest of the Canadian border
“In Massachusetts, John Andrews took warning from New York [draft riots]. Fearful lest the Negro Fifty-fifth Regiment might excite rather quell a mob, the governor moved three hundred men into Boston. Wearied from his work in preparing against trouble, the governor went to Cambridge for the Harvard commencement. As the salutatorian turned to address him, an aid poked him in the gubernatorial ribs, Andrews jumped – and frighten the Latin out of the speaker. Before orator and audience had regained their composure, whispered word came from of troubles in Boston, and Andrews, now wide awake, dashed off to the city.

In Boston, a mob had gathered before the arsenal in Cooper Street. As the crowd swelled, someone began throwing stones at the troops. It was not unlike the situation ninety-three years before on the near-by Commons, and, as in the Boston Massacre, the soldiers fired into the crowd and several were killed. But the similarity ended there. The 1863 mob dispersed, and there was no Samuel Adams of states' rights to lead the populace to revolution. The danger passed as quickly as it had risen, and John Andrews could sleep again.”

William B. Hesseltine, Lincoln, and the War Governors, chapter XIV (The Governors and Conscription), p. 305.

July 14, 1863: The Day the North End said no to conscription.
http://bostoniano.info/northendspirit/north-end-boston-draft-riot-1863/
Thanks for the passage and link but I fail to see the connection with Lincoln where as Jefferson Davis was present with the women and children he threatened to have shot.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

WJC

Major General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
12,773
“In Massachusetts, John Andrews took warning from New York [draft riots]. Fearful lest the Negro Fifty-fifth Regiment might excite rather quell a mob, the governor moved three hundred men into Boston. Wearied from his work in preparing against trouble, the governor went to Cambridge for the Harvard commencement. As the salutatorian turned to address him, an aid poked him in the gubernatorial ribs, Andrews jumped – and frighten the Latin out of the speaker. Before orator and audience had regained their composure, whispered word came from of troubles in Boston, and Andrews, now wide awake, dashed off to the city.

In Boston, a mob had gathered before the arsenal in Cooper Street. As the crowd swelled, someone began throwing stones at the troops. It was not unlike the situation ninety-three years before on the near-by Commons, and, as in the Boston Massacre, the soldiers fired into the crowd and several were killed. But the similarity ended there. The 1863 mob dispersed, and there was no Samuel Adams of states' rights to lead the populace to revolution. The danger passed as quickly as it had risen, and John Andrews could sleep again.”

William B. Hesseltine, Lincoln, and the War Governors, chapter XIV (The Governors and Conscription), p. 305.

July 14, 1863: The Day the North End said no to conscription.
http://bostoniano.info/northendspirit/north-end-boston-draft-riot-1863/
So a Governor took action to safeguard against mob violence. Unfortunately, shots were fired and "several were killed". This appears to be from a chapter in the referenced book called "The Governors and Conscription", so it seems that it does not refer to Lincoln or his Administration, but to State authorities.
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
19,933
Location
Laurinburg NC
Thanks for the passage and link but I fail to see the connection with Lincoln where as Jefferson Davis was present with the women and children he threatened to have shot.
Nor do I, whether Davis was present or not the bread rioters weren't actually fired upon, no one was actually killed. I have another source somewhere that I can't find at the moment indicating one of the people killed during the “Second Boston Massacre” was a twelve-year-old boy.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
19,933
Location
Laurinburg NC
So a Governor took action to safeguard against mob violence. Unfortunately, shots were fired and "several were killed". This appears to be from a chapter in the referenced book called "The Governors and Conscription", so it seems that it does not refer to Lincoln or his Administration, but to State authorities.
So why did you mention the Confederate president during a bread riot where no one was shot and Killed?
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

5fish

Captain
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
7,275
Location
Central Florida
Before Stanton came to be Sec of war, it was Sec. of Interior Seward who was ordering people arrested with a bell... sounds like Stalin's list to me... Arbitrary arrest...

"My Lord, I can touch a bell on my right hand, and order the arrest of a citizen of Ohio; I can touch a bell again, and order the imprisonment of a citizen of New York; and no power on earth, except that of the President, can release them. Can the Queen of England do so much?" Secretary Seward to Lord Lyons Courtesy of the Louis A. Warren Lincoln Library and Museum

Seward's arbitrary arrest was in the 866 range but Stanton would take it into the thousands...

When Congress finally acted Lincoln gave the 170 names...

Finally, when the Habeas Corpus Act of March 3, 1863, required the War Department to supply lists of political prisoners to the U.S. Circuit and District Courts, Stanton delegated the task to Holt, who — late and reluctantly — submitted 170 names to the judges. These were supposed to be all the civilian prisoners in ten Federal prisons, but Holt grumbled that the Act had been carelessly written, and he excluded all persons arrested as "guerrillas" or "bushwhackers" or "as being with or aiding these" as well as those who came under the 57th Article of War. The fact of the matter is that most such crimes could occur only in Missouri (Holt singled out the St. Louis and Alton prisons as being especially full of the sorts of prisoners excluded) or the Confederacy, so that the list was biased Northward. Even so, 90 percent of the persons on the list were residents of slave states, 37.4 percent of them Missourians, 26.3 percent Virginians, and 22.8 percent from Maryland or Kentucky. There were five New Yorkers, three Pennsylvanians, one man from Ohio, and one from Maine. [26]

How we can add lying to the courts...

Link: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jala/2629860.0005.103/--lincoln-administration-and-arbitrary-arrests?rgn=main;view=fulltext
 
Last edited:

5fish

Captain
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
7,275
Location
Central Florida
The Fate of Liberty: Abraham Lincoln and Civil Liberties, by Mark E. Neely Jr.
Its seems Neely like me...

In his authoritative Fate of Liberty: Abraham Lincoln and Civil Liberties (1991), Mark Neely has argued that during the Civil War these two policies—summary arrests and military justice—were of a piece. Both stemmed from the emergency of having an armed rebellion in the nation’s midst, and they were viewed as two parts of a single policy. Yet today we think of the policies as separate, if related. So this week I’ll consider Lincoln’s more famous action, his suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. Next week, I’ll tackle what at the time was considered the more egregious violation, the use of military tribunals to prosecute civilians.

Neely gives you one bacK...

Habeas corpus is the only common-law tradition enshrined in the Constitution, which also explicitly defines when it can be overridden. Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution says, “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.”

Neely gives one back to me...

Taney noted that Article 1 of the Constitution, where habeas corpus is discussed, deals exclusively with congressional powers, meaning that Congress alone can authorize the privilege’s suspension. Although correct, Taney’s argument framed the debate around a legalistic and secondary issue, that of congressional versus presidential power.
(Taney also criticized Merryman’s detention, noting that civilians aren’t subject to military justice—an issue I’ll get to next week.)


Neely gives this...

Where Democrats marshaled constitutional arguments against Lincoln’s order,

Republicans replied that in an emergency, only the president could act fast enough to protect the public safety.

Lincoln himself took this line in a famous July 4, 1861, speech to Congress. He also, more memorably, used a pragmatic argument. “Are all the laws but one to go unexecuted,” he chided his critics, “and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?”

In the end, "National Security" is used to justify the death of our Constitutional rights and the Consitution... Neely with me?

link: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2001/11/lincoln-s-suspension-of-habeas-corpus.html
 

5fish

Captain
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
7,275
Location
Central Florida
Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime, From the Sedition Act of 1798 to the War on Terrorism,
Ho now we have Stone... We got Lincoln ignoring the Supreme Court and mocking the Supreme Court... He is a tyrant

Lincoln did order nighttime arrests, and did ignore Chief Justice Roger B. Taney's ruling that a president had no power to deny habeas corpus. Taney's position is that the Constitution reserves such extreme measures only for the Congress. If a president wants to assume such powers, he cannot do so without at least resorting to the courts, which Lincoln steadily declined to do.

Instead, he rather demagogically demanded to know why the law should force him to shoot "a simple-minded soldier boy who deserts, while I must not touch a hair of a wily agitator who induces him to desert."

End the end Stone is with me...

One closes this admirable book more than ever determined that the authors of the Constitution were right the first time, and that the only amendment necessary might be a prohibition on the passage of any law within six months of any atrocity, foreign or domestic.

Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/07/books/review/perilous-times-war-of-words.html
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
29,997
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Ho now we have Stone... We got Lincoln ignoring the Supreme Court and mocking the Supreme Court... He is a tyrant

Lincoln did order nighttime arrests, and did ignore Chief Justice Roger B. Taney's ruling that a president had no power to deny habeas corpus. Taney's position is that the Constitution reserves such extreme measures only for the Congress. If a president wants to assume such powers, he cannot do so without at least resorting to the courts, which Lincoln steadily declined to do.

Instead, he rather demagogically demanded to know why the law should force him to shoot "a simple-minded soldier boy who deserts, while I must not touch a hair of a wily agitator who induces him to desert."

End the end Stone is with me...

One closes this admirable book more than ever determined that the authors of the Constitution were right the first time, and that the only amendment necessary might be a prohibition on the passage of any law within six months of any atrocity, foreign or domestic.

Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/07/books/review/perilous-times-war-of-words.html
Its seems Neely like me...

In his authoritative Fate of Liberty: Abraham Lincoln and Civil Liberties (1991), Mark Neely has argued that during the Civil War these two policies—summary arrests and military justice—were of a piece. Both stemmed from the emergency of having an armed rebellion in the nation’s midst, and they were viewed as two parts of a single policy. Yet today we think of the policies as separate, if related. So this week I’ll consider Lincoln’s more famous action, his suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. Next week, I’ll tackle what at the time was considered the more egregious violation, the use of military tribunals to prosecute civilians.

Neely gives you one bacK...

Habeas corpus is the only common-law tradition enshrined in the Constitution, which also explicitly defines when it can be overridden. Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution says, “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.”

Neely gives one back to me...

Taney noted that Article 1 of the Constitution, where habeas corpus is discussed, deals exclusively with congressional powers, meaning that Congress alone can authorize the privilege’s suspension. Although correct, Taney’s argument framed the debate around a legalistic and secondary issue, that of congressional versus presidential power.
(Taney also criticized Merryman’s detention, noting that civilians aren’t subject to military justice—an issue I’ll get to next week.)


Neely gives this...

Where Democrats marshaled constitutional arguments against Lincoln’s order,

Republicans replied that in an emergency, only the president could act fast enough to protect the public safety.

Lincoln himself took this line in a famous July 4, 1861, speech to Congress. He also, more memorably, used a pragmatic argument. “Are all the laws but one to go unexecuted,” he chided his critics, “and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?”

In the end, "National Security" is used to justify the death of our Constitutional rights and the Consitution... Neely with me?

link: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2001/11/lincoln-s-suspension-of-habeas-corpus.html
Context.
 

5fish

Captain
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
7,275
Location
Central Florida
I gave you the links... to them....

Maybe you and the others can hide behind Executive Power... The problem is Congress does come back to work sooner or later so in the end, he needs their consent. Which Lincoln did or did not do?

Lincoln acted in accordance with his oath to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution. As Professor Akhil Reed Amar describes in America’s Constitution: A Biography, Lincoln’s actions are consistent with the notion of “executive Power” articulated in Article II of the Constitution:
“a power encompassing the right and duty to protect the United States as an ongoing venture... the first words of Article II themselves vested the president with a residuum of general authority to preserve, protect and defend the republic in emergencies—unilaterally, if need arose and Congress happened to be out of town.”
Link: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/illinois-house-pass-marri_b_3367277?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAGhEiSTz_s0-T1kqavL41M3llvnR6nsap3VSk3p0vAmLLYfBFYsmIzCtqnO_u3mvdKmXEPYDXnKg_DIO3ZbZoJVVJ09wycicRZ4c1oyqza8JDjQ98NfGmLmGOoUSIUSyff3BCymgWGx8ANRmiIW9HdOVHFpnMhpidvJno6zzXzny
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

WJC

Major General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
12,773
The perpetrators, those that turned a blind eye in Lincoln's "surveillance state"
Thanks for your response.
So these "perpetrators" had no direct relationship to Lincoln. Their actions were independent, part of their duties as State officials.
 

WJC

Major General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
12,773
So why did you mention the Confederate president during a bread riot where no one was shot and Killed?
Thanks for your response.
You are mistaken: I made no such claim in this thread.
 

WJC

Major General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
12,773
no one was actually killed.
There seems to be a recurring theme in the defenses presented in this Forum for rebel actions: crimes by rebels are excused if "no one was actually killed".
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

WJC

Major General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
12,773
Why do you keep answering as you do? Are you trying hard to provoke other posters? Do you feel as if you have to answer all post all the time? I am just curious.
Thanks for your response.
So far as I can tell, I do no different than others here: respond to assertions made by others in an attempt to better understand the topic under discussion. I am confident that you do the same.
So do you agree that different standards are used to evaluate actions by the two protagonists in the rebellion?
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top