In the Civil War, President Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. I keep hearing people say that this was unconstitutional and illegal - that "even Lincoln made mistakes". While I agree that the man was certainly not perfect, I don't understand why suspending habeas corpus during the Civil War was illegal. Article One, Section Nine of the US Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Sect ion_9:_Limits_on_Congress) 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."

Is this simply a matter of varying views on whether it was necessary for Lincoln to suspend habeas corpus? Or rather on whether the secession of the south could be considered a proper rebellion? Or is there something that I am missing here? Some clarification from the historical know-alls would be appreciated. :)

In the US the secession of the CSS was not recognized as they argued there never was a right of secession in a federal state, thus making the CSS to rebellious states, but still a part of the US. That's why Lincoln could suspend the Habeas Corpus. Also Confederate troops several times invaded US territory. Or at least the danger still existed. If it was indeed required I don't know. But at least the cases of a rebellion/ invasion existed.

Adler

Many would argue that the public safety didn't require it. Lincoln is further criticized by suspending the writ and then trying civilians in miltary court, which the Taney Supreme Court ruled was illegal. I believe Lincoln continued to do it, though.

There was a huge crackdown in the US at the time against newspapers who weren't kissing the Union's butt, and shutting down newspapers who didn't take a pro-Union line is decidedly anti-free press and unConstitutional. Imagine President Bush shutting down the New York Times and CNN?

Though it was legal to suspend habeas corpus, Lincoln handled it like a dictator. He had his political opponents, copperheads, democrats, editors, activists thrown in prisons.

I know Lincoln certainly did do some things that were illegal (Like trying to arrest a federal judge for ruling against him, shutting down pro-Confederate newspapers, etc....) but was his suspension of habeas corpus actually illegal? I've gotten the impression that a lot of people say it was, but I don't understand why.

I believe it says that Congress alone has the power to suspend that right

I believe it says that Congress alone has the power to suspend that right
Ahh, OK. Looking at it now, that would make sense.

Wow. The more I find out about Lincoln, the more I'm impressed by his audacity on all the powers he assumed for himself. He really had a pair on him.

I believe it says that Congress alone has the power to suspend that right

The Congress was out of session at the time and there was a public emergency, so Lincoln jumped the gun and Congress ratified his decision when it came back into session.

The founders would have been TERRIFIED of somebody like ol' Abe.

The founders would have been TERRIFIED of somebody like ol' Abe.

I don't think so...not if they understood the situation the Union was in.


they'd sure as heck be terrified of modern party politics though. Horrifying :eek:

I don't think so...not if they understood the situation the Union was in.

Thomas Jefferson would be terrified, Alexander Hamilton wouldn't.

they'd sure as heck be terrified of modern party politics though. Horrifying :eek:

Am in complete agreement.

I don't think so...not if they understood the situation the Union was in.

No. I honestly don't think the founding fathers would agree with it.

They never meant for the union to be held together with violence, threats, prison camps, occupation and war.

They never meant for it to fall apart at all

"Give me liberty of give me death"

sounds like violence to me

They never meant for it to fall apart at all

"Give me liberty of give me death"

sounds like violence to me

"Liberty or death" represented their struggle to FREE themselves from the British. As the South was doing with United States in 1861. They believed in violence against invaders and occupiers. (The British)

Declaration of Independence: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence#Annotate d_text_of_the_Declaration)

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.


Why would founding fathers agree with the same policy that the British were using in 1776?