What's your opinion of Lincoln violating the constitution during the Civil War
Did Abraham Lincoln actually violate the constitution before or during the Civil War?
A fair bit of it is actually true, he suspended the freedoms of speech and press, suspended habeas corpus (arguable legality, the constitution says the government can suspend it during times of rebellion or invasion but it doesn't specify if congress or the president has that power. There are two arguments here, the argument put forth by those opposed to Lincoln's suspension was that the section of the Constitution that this provision is contained in refers to Congress. The other arguement (put forth by Lincoln's supporters) is that the constitution gives the right for habeas corpus to be suspended in cases of emergency and because Congress moves very slowly the President can suspend habeas corpus to solve the crisis quickly) and even imposed martial law incrementally and eventually (in 1863) imposed martial law nationwide. He called up about 75k militia and ordered a blockade of Southern ports. This violates the constitution because this is an act of war, something that only congress can do. Then he called for about 40k volunteers to serve for three years, even though Congress has the right to raise armies not the president under the constitution. Even the Empancipation Proclamation can be argued to be of dubious constitutionality. However that one has considerable leeway because of the concept of the nation being at war, and the fact that the constitution goes out of its way to avoid mentioning slavery. He always maintained that these were only wartime measures and when the war was over he would get rid of all of them, and to be fair, he and his successor Andrew Johnson did away with most of them when the war was done.
Sources:
-
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=69993
-
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jala/2629860.0029.205?rgn=main;view=fulltext
How important was Lincoln in the Civil War?
Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus at the beginning of the Civil War
This is a long standing trope among some Confederate sympathizers and other people who are trying to be as fair as possible. How much of it is actually true?
A fair bit of it is actually true, he suspended the freedoms of speech and press, suspended habeas corpus (arguable legality, the constitution says the government can suspend it during times of rebellion or invasion but it doesn't specify if congress or the president has that power. There are two arguments here, the argument put forth by those opposed to Lincoln's suspension was that the section of the Constitution that this provision is contained in refers to Congress. The other arguement (put forth by Lincoln's supporters) is that the constitution gives the right for habeas corpus to be suspended in cases of emergency and because Congress moves very slowly the President can suspend habeas corpus to solve the crisis quickly) and even imposed martial law incrementally and eventually (in 1863) imposed martial law nationwide. He called up about 75k militia and ordered a blockade of Southern ports. This violates the constitution because this is an act of war, something that only congress can do. Then he called for about 40k volunteers to serve for three years, even though Congress has the right to raise armies not the president under the constitution. Even the Empancipation Proclamation can be argued to be of dubious constitutionality. However that one has considerable leeway because of the concept of the nation being at war, and the fact that the constitution goes out of its way to avoid mentioning slavery. He always maintained that these were only wartime measures and when the war was over he would get rid of all of them, and to be fair, he and his successor Andrew Johnson did away with most of them when the war was done.
Sources:
-
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=69993
-
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jala/2629860.0029.205?rgn=main;view=fulltext
This is a short summation of "Lincoln's Suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus: An Historical and Constitutional Analysis" by James Dueholm
There's no question that Lincoln suspended habeus corpus. Initially it was a localized suspension for the protection of the public. When a Maryland man was arrested by the Union military, Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney, who happened to be sitting as a trial judge in the area, issued a writ calling for the arrested man to be brought to the court, which the military refused. Taney ruled (in his position as trial judge) that the ability to suspend habeus corpus was limited to Congress because it's in Article I of the Constitution not Article II. Higher level courts never ruled on the issue. Congress did, much later, pass legislation that said that the president had the power to suspend of habeas corpus. However, prior to that Lincoln declared nationwide martial law and suspension of habeus corpus albeit only with regard to members and supporters of the rebellion.
In that there are no court decisions on the subject other than the Taney trial ruling, there's not really any actual judicial opinion on the matter. The academic discussion of the issue tends to favor Lincoln, however.
Separately, there are questions over the constitutionality of emancipation but I've not read much about that.
Abraham Lincoln violated the constitution by suspending Habeas corpus, do you find this to have been necessary due to the condition of the country at the time or do you think this was an unacceptable act for a president to commit