Restraints on legal rights during wartime is not a new thing. On October 23, 1861, President Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus in Washington, D.C. for all military-related cases. Article I of the Constitution say this: "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." Lincoln's actions were taken in response to riots and local militias during the early stages of the Civil War. Lincoln ignored the ruling of the US Circuit Court against his order.
Explore American History
©2012 About.com. All rights reserved.
A part of The New York Times Company.
Comments
My research indicates this isn’t the only time Lincoln disobeyed federal law during the war. The list seems to be quite long.
I am confused. Article One states it may be suspended in the case of rebellion and invasion. Does that not describe the Civil War?
This article does not tell even the whole truth & nothing but the truth. Many northern newspaper men, & even folks speaking their 1st ammendment rights, were imprissoned in misserable cells with no charge for years.
It’s amazing just how much info about Lincoln is withheld.
Had he not been murdered, he would rack right down with Harding.
Being a martyr, has it’s rewards.
Lincoln, was a terrorist.
The invasion of the South, was wrong, the truth
is, was war of northern aggression.
The spoil of war, victors write the history.
The northern occupation was brutal and continue
today, The occupation of Japan and Germany only
lasted four years and the occupiers rebuilt both
country,
The Civil War should be renamed The Slaveholders’ Rebellion. Lincoln a terrorist? People who say that never seem to volunteer to become slaves themselves…..
Lincoln was a terrorist? Either someone needs to study more history or learn the meaning of the word.
Everyone needs to do a little research here. Lincoln’s own words were that the war was to ‘preserve the union’ the war had nothing to do with slavery while it was being raged. Lincoln himself was in favor of upholding the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. Please research states rights issues before and after the civil war. It’s very enlightening.
Sandi,
The Confederacy wasn’t trying to destroy the Federal government. They were trying to leave it. Had the Southern States been left to their desires, the Federal government would have continued without them.
If the war wasn’t about slavery, why is slavery the reason given for secession, as stated in the secessions statements of the rebelling states? One would have to purposefully ignore these statements to unequivocally state that “the war had nothing to do with slavery while it was being waged”. It was, in fact, the right of the seceding states to have slavery that the war was fought in the first place. If not, then why is it both defended and used as the reason for secession by the seceding states themselves?
As I understand it, the Civil War was not about freeing the slaves. It was about preserving the union; keeping the U.S. intact. Abolishing salvery was simply a tool, or tactic, to create turmoil in the South, which helped the Northern war effort a bit.
Donald Moeser’s comments (Item #4) about Lincoln’s list of wrongdoings and being a “marytr,” so to speak, is factual, and unfortunately, few know of this and instead always place Lincoln on a pesdestal.
Slavery itself is inhumane and should never occur, but ending it was not Lincoln’s original intent for the war, as I understand this history.
Lincoln did like most lawyers,he interpreted the law as well as he could given the outrageous behavior of his opponents.
You have citizens firing on Federal Property and Federal Troops.
You have taken the tax revenues of several states and set up your own diplomatic corps against every rule in the Constitution.
You have engaged in deluding and defrauding numberless officers who had been educated by Federal tax money and who swore to uphold the Constitution.
Now you want to talk about suspending the writ of habeas corpus.
I doubt if any English lawyer would argue the US had already established this precedent during the Revolution against the English four score and seven years before.
Hear,hear,hear.
During WWI and WWII the government simply took all the property of the enemy,and froze all their accounts,and refused to pay any debts owed to the enemy.
There are two legal states within the Constitution,one is for peacetime,and one is for wartime. Once the Congress agrees to go to war,all sorts of powers transfer directly to the President.
@ Sandi,
In the Constitution the part about suspending the Writ of Habeus Corpus is under the powers of Congress not the President. The powers of the President are under a different Section. This follows along the lines of how the powers are structured in that Congress as our Representatives.
Congress in almost every manner FIRST come up with the law, Declaration of War etc… Then the President “Executes” or carries out the new law etc.. In other words the President cannot make law or do much else on his own.
Read Federalist Papers # 69 about his Role as Commander In Chief and I think you will be really suprised. The sixth paragraph down.
SonofLiberty