Where does Abraham Lincoln rank?

[Douger]

Several people were listing Lincoln toward the bottom of the list and I would like to hear their reasoning.

Dead last, worst President ever. Those needlessdeaths were on his watch. Should have just let the South leave like they are permitted to do. States can leave the Union at ANY TIME.

Really? Could slaves leave their Southern owners anytime they wanted? Legally?

Could the southerners get a full refund from the Jews and Inbred Brit " yankees" that sold them to them ?

 

[paperview]

Kevin's half-right: There is permission to suspend habeas, but it is NOT the President's job.

The Constitution is vague on whose job it is.

"the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the pubic safety may require it."

The powers of commander-in-chief are invested in the president (Article II, Section 2) while the power of suspension of HC is invested in Congress (Article I, Section 9).

So, if the president declars suspension, the Congress would have to approve it, then the President sign the bill? Is that right?

If you can download this University of Baltimore Law Review article, might make for some interesting reading:

"The question of which political branch has the power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is a classic constitutional separation of powers question with important consequences for civil liberties. However, the one case squarely addressing the question, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney's opinion in Ex Parte Merryman concerning Lincoln's suspension of the writ during the Civil War, is cited more often as a confrontation of personal wills rather than a valid legal analysis. Although history tends to assume that Taney's opinion was correct as a matter of law, while Lincoln's refusal to acknowledge the opinion was correct as a matter of necessity, the question itself remains unsettled. However, a correct answer to the question is vitally important, as recent events in the war on terror threaten to undermine civil liberties.


SSRN-The Power to Suspend Habeas Corpus: An Answer from the Arguments Surrounding Ex Parte Merryman by Jeffrey Jackson

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well let's look at where the power to suspend habeas corpus is located in the Constitution.

"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." - Article 1, Section 9

Article 1 deals with the powers of the legislature, which would mean that the power to suspend habeas corpus would lie with the legislature and not the President. Also, we can look at the founders who would never have given the power to suspend habeas corpus to the executive.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Well, the man certainly did some extraordinary things, not to mention jailing and deporting journalists, executing people, suspending habeas corpus, etc. But... he presided over a very difficult time, and in doing some of these things, probably saved the union. So.. I'd have to give him high marks for balls and vision.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Lincoln responded in a Special Session to Congress on July 4, 1861 that an insurrection "in nearly one-third of the States had subverted the whole of the laws . . . Are all the laws, but one, to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?"

Worth pondering.

 

[paperview]

Well let's look at where the power to suspend habeas corpus is located in the Constitution.

"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." - Article 1, Section 9

Article 1 deals with the powers of the legislature, which would mean that the power to suspend habeas corpus would lie with the legislature and not the President. Also, we can look at the founders who would never have given the power to suspend habeas corpus to the executive.

Legal scholars have been debating it for generations Kevin.

The legislature was not in session until July of that year. Lincoln had to assume, by necessity (in his view) at the time, the powers that may have been vested in the Congress. (Lincoln noted the Constitution was silent on where the powers actually were placed)

They (the Congress) passed the Habeas Corpus Act not long after anyway and legitimized Lincoln's suspensions of habeas corpus and approved future suspensions for the duration of the war.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well let's look at where the power to suspend habeas corpus is located in the Constitution.

"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." - Article 1, Section 9

Article 1 deals with the powers of the legislature, which would mean that the power to suspend habeas corpus would lie with the legislature and not the President. Also, we can look at the founders who would never have given the power to suspend habeas corpus to the executive.

Legal scholars have been debating it for generations Kevin.

The legislature was not in session until July of that year. Lincoln had to assume, by necessity (in his view) at the time, the powers that may have been vested in the Congress. (Lincoln noted the Constitution was silent on where the powers actually were placed)

They (the Congress) passed the Habeas Corpus Act not long after anyway and legitimized Lincoln's suspensions of habeas corpus and approved future suspensions for the duration of the war.

It's never necessary to suspend habeas corpus, and just because the legislature is not in session does not give the President authority to wield their power.

 

[paperview]

Well let's look at where the power to suspend habeas corpus is located in the Constitution.

"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." - Article 1, Section 9

Article 1 deals with the powers of the legislature, which would mean that the power to suspend habeas corpus would lie with the legislature and not the President. Also, we can look at the founders who would never have given the power to suspend habeas corpus to the executive.

Legal scholars have been debating it for generations Kevin.

The legislature was not in session until July of that year. Lincoln had to assume, by necessity (in his view) at the time, the powers that may have been vested in the Congress. (Lincoln noted the Constitution was silent on where the powers actually were placed)

They (the Congress) passed the Habeas Corpus Act not long after anyway and legitimized Lincoln's suspensions of habeas corpus and approved future suspensions for the duration of the war.

It's never necessary to suspend habeas corpus, and just because the legislature is not in session does not give the President authority to wield their power.

Your opinion.

You know what they say about opinions....

 

[Charles Stucker]

Lincoln first instituted conscription in the USA - point against.
Lincoln caused a dramatic departure from the constitutional balance between state and federal government - point against.
Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation - Point For
Lincoln only issued the Emancipation Proclamation to generate support in Europe - wipes out the only point for.
Lincoln micromanaged the war, resulting in far more deaths on both sides - point against.
Lincoln is the only president to ever receive a patent form the US patent office - cool fact, but not part of his presidency.
Lincoln racked up a pretty impressive (for the time) national debt - point against.
Lincoln's war ravaged the economy of large sections of US property - point against.
Lincoln blockaded ports he still claimed to control - point against, but a minor one.

The first two points against Lincoln make anything positive he might have achieved negligible in comparison as they set precedents which forever lessened the liberties of US citizens.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Legal scholars have been debating it for generations Kevin.

The legislature was not in session until July of that year. Lincoln had to assume, by necessity (in his view) at the time, the powers that may have been vested in the Congress. (Lincoln noted the Constitution was silent on where the powers actually were placed)

They (the Congress) passed the Habeas Corpus Act not long after anyway and legitimized Lincoln's suspensions of habeas corpus and approved future suspensions for the duration of the war.

It's never necessary to suspend habeas corpus, and just because the legislature is not in session does not give the President authority to wield their power.

Your opinion.

You know what they say about opinions....

Certainly. But I also know that anybody who actually reads the Constitution would pretty much come to the same conclusion that it is up to the legislature to suspend habeas corpus since that power is listed in the Article pertaining to the legislature.

 

[Jon]

Let's face it: the Civil War was about production. Without the South, the North was at a loss for imported raw materials to produce goods. They didn't want to pay the South for their goods (much like the South didn't want to pay the workers for their work; thus, slavery), so they forced them into submission. If anything, the North enslaved the South.

Is my argument that the nation would be better with slavery? No. Would the nation be better without the North? No. Would the nation be better if states had more rights? Fuckin' right.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jon, your argument is good for giggles and jiggles. The South started the war not to protect primarily its economic base but to protect its white master race democracy built on Negro chattel slavery.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am correcting Charles Stucker's analysis above so that it is more in line with what happened, why, and its effects.

Conscription = necessary for survival of the U.S.
Limitation on overweening interpretation of states' rights = necessary for survival
of the U.S.
Emancipation Proclamation - Point For (I agree)
Lincoln only issued the Emancipation Proclamation to generate support in Europe -
a disingenuous and dishonest answer: (1) influence direction of European policy = good;
(2) morally correct = good; (3) undermine southern war labor base = good
Lincoln managed the war better that JCD [Lincoln won] = good
Lincoln's patent = irrelevant
Lincoln and the national debt - the war financing and the debt very well managed by
the Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase, much better than the rampant
printing of Confederate currency that generated uncontrollable inflation
Lincoln's war ravaged the economy of large sections of US property - let's change that to
southern US property and place the blame properly on the secessionists
Lincoln blockaded ports = of course and a positive point

The South's intransigience in keeping millions enslaved were a terrible affront to American civil liberties and far worse than the temporary war time measures of Lincoln.

 

[Jon]

The South started the war

I stopped reading here. The South didn't start the war.

 

[elvis]

The South started the war

I stopped reading here. The South didn't start the war.

can you explain the scenario? how did the north start the war?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The South started the war

I stopped reading here. The South didn't start the war.

can you explain the scenario? how did the north start the war?

The north didn't. Abraham Lincoln did. He wanted the war so he provoked the south into attacking Fort Sumter because he knew northern sentiment wasn't on his side.

 

[Jon]

The South started the war

I stopped reading here. The South didn't start the war.

can you explain the scenario? how did the north start the war?

The South wanted to secede and be done with it. The North didn't want them to.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The South started the war

I stopped reading here. The South didn't start the war.

You would be wrong. Lincoln had less then 16000 troops under arms and did not raise the militia as States left the Union. He only finally called for mobilization AFTER South Carolina ATTACKED a Federal Fort and seized it6 and its Garrison.

The South started the WAR. The South Mobilized months before the North did.

 

[Jon]

Because the South wanted to control their own forts and wanted the Union out of their country? To me, the fact that the Union would not abandon Sumter was an act of aggression.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Because the South wanted to control their own forts and wanted the Union out of their country? To me, the fact that the Union would not abandon Sumter was an act of aggression.

The Fort was NOT part of South Carolina. They had no legal right to it. They signed it away probably back right after the revolutionary war. They definitely had no legal right to attack it. They started a war that they then LOST. A war Lincoln tried his damnedest to avoid. He REFUSED to call up troops as States left the Union and called up their own troops. He refused to call up troops as his own army had desertions and resignations dropping it even lower then the original 16000. He made every reasonable effort to appease the South. He refused to act as Southern States seized Federal Armories and property inside the States.

The South started a war they could not win. By the way read some periodicals from that time from the South and you will find that the South was planning a war all along.