It is Constitutional to suspend Habeus Corpus during a rebellion or insurrection. The question regarding Lincoln is whether he had the authority to do so while Congress was out of session. Given the unique nature of the emergency and the stakes involved, I think his actions can be regretted but clearly justified. States don't have the Constitutional authority to leave the Union. If they want to try, fine, but don't pretend it's Constitutional or should just be allowed. That's not a functional nation, but a weaker version of the Articles of Confederation.

Dr. Watson said:

---

It is Constitutional to suspend Habeus Corpus during a rebellion or insurrection.

---

As much crap as I give you, let me clarify and say this is an absolutely straight question:

Given the point of view of Lincoln and the North, I can understand this stance in Union-controlled areas of the CSA. But I was given to understand he did this in Union states. Did I misunderstand that? And if I was correct, doesn't it seem he had much less standing to do so in the North?

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

It is Constitutional to suspend Habeus Corpus during a rebellion or insurrection.

---

As much crap as I give you, let me clarify and say this is an absolutely straight question:

Given the point of view of Lincoln and the North, I can understand this stance in Union-controlled areas of the CSA. But I was given to understand he did this in Union states. Did I misunderstand that? And if I was correct, doesn't it seem he had much less standing to do so in the North?

---

There are certain cases where it is extremely questionable whether it was necessary to detain people. In cases like Baltimore, which was seriously agitating for secession and could have isolated Washington, DC, Lincoln's actions are very logical. In fact, according to the Habeus Corpus Act of 1863, the states in rebellion were specifically exempted from any requirement to provide a writ of Habeus Corpus while certain exemptions were granted in the Northern states if the individual was deemed in rebellion to the government.

Thank you.

The President Cannon susbend Habeas Corpus without the consent of Congress. The President cannot shut down the press and imprison journalists. President cannot raise an army without congress. President could not blockade the south without a declaration of war. President cannot create a new state. President violated the 2nd amendment in Maryland, one of many unconstitutional actions in Maryland. 5th amendment violations. 8th amendment violations. Emancipation proclamation itself, obviously, was unconstitutional. The guy even tried to have a Chief Justice arrested. That's just scratching the surface on Lincoln, and doesn't touch on the countless war crimes he directed and/or allowed. By the end of the war he and his army were engaged in what amounted to genocide and mass looting. Total disregard for law.

You have a better argument for Lincoln's cause if you accept the legality of secession while also admitting Lincoln was on a dynastic conquest to restore the union - of course you'd have to give up the virtue signaling that goes along with most defenses of Lincoln

claym:

Read the first chapter of this book by Craig Symonds the former head of the history department at the USNA:

Lincoln and His Admirals

Most presidents don't hit the ground running as they start their administration and get their people in place and most don't inherit a crisis like Lincoln did. Here is evidence that Lincoln was in a reactive mode with the relief expeditions during the first month of his presidency. Now you show me the evidence that he was orchestrating a war.

claym711 said:

---

The President Cannon susbend Habeas Corpus without the consent of Congress. The President cannot shut down the press and imprison journalists. President cannot raise an army without congress. President could not blockade the south without a declaration of war. President cannot create a new state. President violated the 2nd amendment in Maryland, one of many unconstitutional actions in Maryland. 5th amendment violations. 8th amendment violations. Emancipation proclamation itself, obviously, was unconstitutional. The guy even tried to have a Chief Justice arrested. That's just scratching the surface on Lincoln, and doesn't touch on the countless war crimes he directed and/or allowed. By the end of the war he and his army were engaged in what amounted to genocide and mass looting. Total disregard for law.

You have a better argument for Lincoln's cause if you accept the legality of secession while also admitting Lincoln was on a dynastic conquest to restore the union - of course you'd have to give up the virtue signaling that goes along with most defenses of Lincoln

---

Genocide? That's one of the most absurd overreactions that I've read on this website, and that's saying something. Mass looting? Also absurd, unless you're trying to claim black people are rightfully considered property.

Lincoln was faced with a crisis completely unique in American (world?) history as soon as he took office and he did not have a Congress in session that could help parse some of the legal niceties. For all the "Lincoln was a tyrant!" bull**** (that somehow always ignores Jeff Davis's behavior in office), it's remarkable how quickly Lincoln worked to bring Congress and the government into the situation and give them a chance to pass judgement on his actions. It's also remarkable that he made zero effort to avoid the election of 1864, despite the crazy circumstances. Quite a tyrant you have there.

All the while knowing that Jefferson Davis would order the firing on Ft.Sumter.

The Civil War was an inside job!!!!

I understand now... Not!

The South was reactionary? That's bull***** They chose to seize all federal lands and property despite the fact that they had no claim to the property. They chose to fire on Sumter and chose to organize an army in February of 1861. Their actions were clearly unacceptable to Lincoln and the North. He was not elected to allow the Union to dissolve and the Constitution clearly states that insurrection and rebellion are not allowed.

BQ78 said:

---

All the while knowing that Jefferson Davis would order the firing on Ft.Sumter.

The Civil War was an inside job!!!!

I understand now... Not!

---

He's turned Lincoln into the most brilliant supervillian of all time.

Lincoln was absolutely brilliant, and Sumter/Pickins were a game of chess, which Lincoln won. How he won it was assisted by Buchanan's renigment of assurances that Sumter would be evacuated, which Lincoln doubled down upon by having Seward assure the Southern diplomats in Washington that no hostile actions would be taken, while at the same time planning such hostile actions.

Upon hearing of the rumors of the hostile plans, the Confederates again approached with diplomacy, to which they received reaponse "Faith as to Sumter kept. Wait and see". I believe it was the very next day that Lincoln made a formal notice that Charleston Harbour would be invaded with a "re-supply force".

The Confederates actually showed great trust and patience in attempting a peaceful resolution to the Sumter issue. Lincoln brilliantly forced the hand.

It was a resupply mission. There was no plan to militarily engage. The US government was under zero obligation to abandon its property just because the Confederacy wanted them to.

Did you read the one chapter of that book I posted?

Please read that, offer a critique where you think the facts are wrong, presenting counterfacts and send me the factual basis for your theory that Lincoln orchestrated the war. Until you do that, we are just shouting past each other and won't resolve anything.

I do agree with your statment that Lincoln was brilliant but certainly not in 1861 as his adminstration was in as much disarray as the Trump administration seems to be right now, as I said, it takes most presidents time (weeks to months) to get their heads and their administration in the game.

You're welcome to refute or counterargue any facts or opinions I posted, BQ. I don't feel an obligation to read the piece you shared, although I will.

You are disputing the recounts related to Lincolns several unconstitutional actions as I've described, or his refusal to meet with Southern Diplomats, having Seward string them along while planning a military escort resupply mission, and raising an army and invading the South?

From your own link: Lincoln was advised, and surely understood, "we will have innagurated a civil war by our own act without an adequate object"

claym711 said:

---

You are disputing the recounts related to Lincolns several unconstitutional actions as I've described, or his refusal to meet with Southern Diplomats, having Seward string them along while planning a military escort resupply mission, and raising an army and invading the South?

From your own link: Lincoln was advised, and surely understood, "we will have innagurated a civil war by our own act without an adequate object"

---

Would you meet with diplomats of a nation you don't believe exists? Especially when their stated purpose is to be recognized as an independent country? No one has ever bothered to answer this: what should the Confederacy been willing to compromise on? Your entire premise for "Lincoln is a tyrant" is a very selective reading of the period that removes it from the context and ignores most of his actions and behaviors, as has been pointed out numerous times.

Jefferson Davis suspended habeas corpus and declared martial law in a ten mile radius of Richmond as well as in areas with known Unionist sentiment. His own Vice President called him a tyrant. I don't think Davis was a tyrant (micromanager on the other hand...), but he was faced with unique emergencies that arose as a result of a massive war previously unknown in American history and for which the Constitution (including the Confederate Constitution) never imagined would happen. Lincoln was in the same boat. We can disagree with some of his actions and should, but it's ignorantly facile to put all of the blame on him.

Oh, and are you trying to argue that the Federal government has no right to resupply its people and property when under threat from a hostile force? That's pretty weak.

I didn't argue that the Federals had zero footing to try and hold property within seceded states, not anything regarding what they should have done, nor anything regarding Jefferson Davis, nor that the South had no responsibility in the escalation to war.

I've argued exactly as I've stated regarding Lincoln and the Federals responsibilities related thereto. Do I think Lincoln was a tyrant and likely war criminal? Yes.

I'm asking you to show or reference the "silver bullet" where Lincoln had plans, wrote or stated that he wanted the war in order to subjugate the south or punish it for whatever reason you think. I can show many instances of where he wrote or said the opposite of that, none that support it.

It is truly remarkable to me that folks who still defend the Confederacy's motives can ignore the blatant written words of the men of the time, such as the Declarations of Causes of Secession that state the reasons were almost entirely issues around slavery and race and that Lincoln was itching for a war, when he clearly said and wrote he was not.

I guess Trump didn't invent 24D chess .

claym711 said:

---

I didn't argue that the Federals had zero footing to try and hold property within seceded states, not anything regarding what they should have done, nor anything regarding Jefferson Davis, nor that the South had no responsibility in the escalation to war.

I've argued exactly as I've stated regarding Lincoln and the Federals responsibilities related thereto. Do I think Lincoln was a tyrant and likely war criminal? Yes.

---

So the Federals had the footing in your mind to hold their territory (the seizure of which would quite rightly start a war or some military action in almost any circumstance), but Lincoln was a tyrant and war criminal for doing so? And your arguments regarding Federal responsibilities are completely from a Confederate perspective with no acknowledgement or even demonstrated understanding of the other side.

You changing what I said doesn't make it what I said. It's a terribly immature debate tactic as well.

claym711 said:

---

You changing what I said doesn't make it what I said. It's a terribly immature debate tactic as well.

---

Maybe try actually explaining your point with nuance and historic evidence instead of screaming, "Lincoln was a tyrant!" I've yet to see you explain why resupplyimg federal troops on federal land was an act of war or even supportable as a legitimate provocation to war. Nor have you yet acknowledged the unique nature of the period in 1861.

Yes, you have. As usual, however, you are precluded from any perscpetive other than your own. Your usual course of action, as evidenced again and again here, is to attempt to encapsulate a lot of information and opinion provided by someone else with ridiculous rhetoric. Its a tired internet age tactic, that, again, is simply immature.

Yet, to again respond to your claims, Lincoln was advised by his own cabinet that such action he took was a provocation to war, prior to taking it. No doubt he was similarly later advised against other escalatory actions, some of which were illegal.

There is no justification for the violation of rights guaranteed within the constitution. Your "screaming", 'look look at what Jeff Davis did' (which I have not defended), only reveals the indefensibility of your positions. You have provided nothing other than severely inept justifications and minimizations of Lincoln's illegal actions. Your opinion that the actions that Lincoln took with regard to Sumter were not an escalation are nearly as indefensible.

Which guaranteed rights are you claiming were violated that were not capable of being constitutionally limited in the course of a rebellion? Keep in mind I don't accept that secession is constitutional and neither did the vast majority of Northerners.

And I brought up Davis to point out the weight of the problems facing the leaders in the conflict, and that those problems were naturally occurring issues with few good options. Davis faced them as well and made many of the same decisions. The fact that Lincoln allowed dissent, argument, and an election in the midst of a Civil War makes calling him a tyrant a tiring and partisan position rather than a well-argued historical position.

As for Sumter, what did you think of South Carolina firing on the Star of the West in January of 1861? Was that a provocation? Was that tyrannical or peaceful? Lincoln could not cede federal ground to rebels. Period. He was elected to preserve and defend the Constitution and the Union. He let the Confederacy know he was sending a resupply mission. He specifically told Confederate leadership that there was nothing of military value on the resupply mission. He let them know everything about the mission to specifically avoid charges that he was forcing them to attack. The Confederate leadership decided to attack, not Lincoln.

If Lincoln was truly a great President the Civil War would have never happened.

Care to clarify? Or are you just going to throw that troll out there and ride off into the sunset?

Given that Lincoln refused to meet with the Southern delegates seeking a peaceful resolution is a dead giveaway.

bobbranco said:

---

Given that Lincoln refused to meet with the Southern delegates seeking a peaceful resolution is a dead giveaway.

---

What was the Confederacy willing to compromise on? Lincoln could not recognize them as a foreign nation.

We will never know. Lincoln refused to meet peacefully. There were no discussions by the newly elected President with the peace delegations resulting in the tragic and fatal failed path Lincoln chose for the nation.

Failed huh? The US, together, went on to become the most powerful nation the world has ever seen. Sounds like the epitome of failure.

claym711 said:

---

I didn't argue that the Federals had zero footing to try and hold property within seceded states, not anything regarding what they should have done, nor anything regarding Jefferson Davis, nor that the South had no responsibility in the escalation to war.

I've argued exactly as I've stated regarding Lincoln and the Federals responsibilities related thereto. Do I think Lincoln was a tyrant and likely war criminal? Yes.

---

Lincoln is a tyrant we should hate. Secessionist were freedom loving people we should feel sorry for.

What an odd view of the world.

bobbranco said:

---

We will never know. Lincoln refused to meet peacefully. There were no discussions by the newly elected President with the peace delegations resulting in the tragic and fatal failed path Lincoln chose for the nation.

---

Lincoln didn't choose it. The rebels chose it when they violated the Constitution and refused any and all offers to mitigate their concerns. So, again, what would they have offered? Should they have compromised on returning to the Union? Would they have?

Redags, you too must really be triggered to have to fabricate statements so your "view of the world" can remain intact.

Certainly the original 13 have the legal right to secession. The creation of the Constitution itself established that. It was a secession from the Articles. It's a bit more murky for states created or admitted thereafter, except for previously sovereign states that voted to become a party to the United States, BUT as we know all new states were admitted on equal footing which auggest the same sovereign rights. Soverignty was not forfeight by the state conventions and delegated powers can certainly be rescinded by the same people who granted them. Obviously if the South had won its "independence" the legality of secession would be irrelevant, but since it lost one could also argue that the illegality was established in a way. One could similarly argue that Lincolns blockade established the legality of secession as did the requirement of passing an amendment to the insurrection act to allow Lincoln the power to wage war against the seceeding States (a power he did not have at the time of secession. However, if you accept that secession was affirmed as illegal upon the North's victory, you would then also have to cede the right to self determination if it can be eliminated or made illegal by coercion. There are many argument that can be made on both sides, but people like those above use the "illegal" arguments to minimize and justify Lincolns actions.