Lincoln And The Suspension Of Habeas Corpus

“It is an ancient English legal concept that empowers judges to order imprisoned persons to be brought into core to determine if they are being legally held” (Lincoln and the Writ of Liberty). This quote comes from “Lincoln and the Writ of Liberty” showing how the writ of habeas of corpus allows a fair trial for all criminals. The Constitution and Bill of Rights includes accused persons the right to fair and speedy trial, a jury of peers, and protection from cruel or unusual punishment. “On September 24, 1862, Lincoln issued a proclamation unprecedented in American history. He suspended the writ of liberty everywhere in the United States. The suspensions applied to Confederate spies or to those who aided the rebel cause, interfered with military enlistments, resisted the draft, or were ‘guilty of any disloyal practice” (Lincoln and the Writ of Liberty). Mrs. Surratt was accused to be an aid in the rebel cause and the suspension of the writ of liberty affected her trial immensely. Mary Surratt’s execution was not equitable because she did not have access to the basic rights given to U.S.

In a time of war, it is necessary for the President to enforce limits on the power of individuals. President Lincoln was entirely justified in limiting rights during the wartime situation to protect the nation. It was also necessary for him to increase the size of the federal army in order for the North to have any possibility of winning the war. Lincoln had to do all that he could to keep the Border States, each of which the Union could not afford to lose. Setting limits on the rights of individuals was unavoidable for President Lincoln, because Copperheads posed a significant threat to the Union.

An example of a presidential executive order which congress did not authorise would be Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation.

In school we are taught that Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves. This statement is reinforced continuously throughout our education, beginning from the time we are in elementary school to when we are in high school. However, it’s never really expounded upon when taught. The discussion never goes further than ‘Abraham Lincoln enacted the Emancipation Proclamation and thus freed the slaves’, but is still able to instill the implication that he did so out of his own moral values and that life for ex-slaves was better for it. The truth of the matter is actually the complete opposite. The emancipation proclamation was a purely political decision that instead of truly freeing the slaves, only served to keep them bound.

During the early 17th century slavery was being practiced in the South for over 350 years. They were forced to work the production of tobacco, crops, and later cotton. When the cotton grin was evented in 1793 along with the growing demand product in Europe. The slaves had become a use to the South and it formed a foundation for their economy. Going into the late 18th century there were problems with slavery and they are the abolitionist movement, the Missouri Compromise, the Dred Scott Decision, and Abraham Lincoln.

"So when Lincoln suspended the writ of Habeas corpus in order to arrest those accused of treason, the "Peace Democrats" had more ammunition against the president. There was much controversy as to whether the president had the power to suspend habaes corpus, and it was argued that only Congress had that right. The writ of habeas corpus protects people from arbitrary arrest and detainment. The power to do so was both that of the legislative branch as well as the judicial branch. It was unclear whether the Philadelphia convention placed it in Article I, just to identify it or define it as a legislative function. Either way, Lincoln did so, and the suspension of the writ of Habeas corpus brought on thousands of arbitrary arrests. Many of those who were arrested were spies, foreigners and smugglers. The question is: Did Lincoln go too far and unlawfully exercise his executive powers to manipulate constitutional limits?

The Writ of Habeas Corpus states that “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" (U.S. Constitution. Art. I, Sec. 9). In simpler terms, this means that the government, or its officials, is forbidden to arrest a citizen without allowing the case to be presented to a judge or court. The dictionary defines a writ as "a form of written command in the name of a court or other legal authority." Since the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215, Habeas Corpus has been a pillar of law in America ("FAQs: What Is Habeas Corpus."). It

Lincoln’s decision in regard to suspension of habeas corpus is best understood from the perspective of the civil war. After secession of Virginia from the Union in April 1861, Maryland was the only option available for communication, transport, troop movements and supplies to Washington DC, the country’s capital. Because the railway ran through Baltimore, which was a difficult city to deal with, and Maryland’s support could not be taken for granted President Lincoln closely monitored its legislature session and also ordered many members to be arrested. Lincoln’s main objective was to keep the transport and communications routes through Maryland functioning, which was the main reason for his issue of presidential executive order in regard to Suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dueholm, 2008).

This political cartoon characterizes Abraham Lincoln as having a difficulty balancing the slavery issue with the other needs of his party. One person is a slave representing freedom and holding the end of one side, the slaveholder is representing slavery holding the other side, and Abraham Lincoln is in between both slavery and freedom.

“Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties.” Abraham Lincoln made this statement in referring to the emancipation of the slaves. Even though the statement has nothing to deal with the Fourth Amendment, or the Search and Seizure laws within the Constitution, what is stated still brings about a good point relating to the Constitution. The fact being brought out of this quote is that the Constitution’s purpose is to safeguard Americans’ liberties. Along with great points brings questions regarding the quote. Should individuals interfere with the Constitution, more specifically the amendments and rights pertaining to search and seizure laws? In today’s

In order to understand rights and liberties during wartime situations, some background information needs to be addressed and explained. This paper will explain the definition of habeas corpus and the role of the Judicial, Legislative and Executive Branches of government during wartime and conflicts, how the President will sometimes take matter into his own hands.

Court decisions are very delicate, it’s not always about what is morally correct but more importantly about what is politically correct. It may be hard to side with the law sometimes due to cases dealing with cruel subjects such as slavery. Although, in times like this judges must maintain on the right track following what’s constitutionally correct. For example in the Dred Scott Case, he obviously lost his case since at the time slavery was legal. Many people, said it was erroneous, mistaken, and fallacious, but put the pieces together, it was written on the constitution that slavery was allowed. Of course, bondage is and wasn’t virtuous but did the court really make the wrong decision? In respect to this situation Abraham Lincoln made a speech to his fellow citizens. Abraham Lincoln did not agree. During his speech he said “But we think the Dred Scott decision is erroneous. We know the court that made it, has often over-ruled its own decisions, and we shall do what we can to have it to over-rule this.”

Although he appointed these men many of whom were far more experienced than he, Lincoln would always make the final decision regardless of his cabinet’s opinion on the matter. Lincoln came to the conclusion as the President of a nation at war with itself this allowed himself to take on certain “war powers” that would be needed to preserve the union. The scope of his power was extended militarily, financially and legally. Lincoln throughout the war implemented the following without congressional approval appropriated funds, implemented a naval blockade and implemented a draft. A few more military measures that Lincoln took was the implementation of Marshall Law in Border States, and most controversially suspending habeas corpus. Many of these actions were taken when Congress was out of session and they were later approved. Lincoln often took unilateral action because a deliberative body such as Congress, could often not make these time sensitive

During America's most consequential wars, the United States government has restricted civil liberties of the American people despite the nation’s strong rooted foundation for preserving every citizen’s rights. When danger is an ever present factor for the nation due to war or conflict restrictions are often placed on some of the most basic freedoms and liberties. Perfect balancing of these restrictions is vital to the countries wellbeing. One of the most well-known examples of this type of restraint is Abraham Lincoln’s precedent of suspending the writ of Habeas Corpus and issuing martial law. Lincoln’s actions clearly violated the rights of the people that are guaranteed to them under the Constitution. While out of context it wouldn’t

On September 15, 1863 President Abraham Lincoln temporarily suspended Habeas Corpus, which is the right to due process. Anyone who was a confederate sympathiser or spoke out against the war were arrested, put in jail and weren 't given a trial until after the war was over. Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus because he wanted to suppress dissenters to strengthen the War effort. More than 13,000 civilians in the Union were arrested under martial law throughout the War. Lincoln viewed his action as justified since he believed the country was in a time of crisis.