"The importance of the main question presented by this record cannot be overstated; for it involves the very framework of the government and the fundamental principles of American liberty."
Justice Davis
Wars tear countries apart. During wartime, laws are often not followed as they should be and the legal system becomes lax. The military of a country may abuse the power of martial law granted to them during war. Laws may be created on the spot to serve a personal purpose to someone of power and people may be wrongfully punished. All of these things are warning signs that democracy is at risk
During the civil war, the government did many questionable things including President Lincoln's suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. Habeas corpus, which in Latin means, "Produce the body", states the holders of a prisoner must release the person to the court to face the charges brought against the person. This writ means that a party cannot hold a person prisoner indefinitely; they cannot make a person simply disappear. Lincoln suspended the writ during the war to control the rebel threat. During the Civil War, there were citizens of loyal states who secretly sympathized with the rebels. There was a struggle to arrest all these "traitors" who most often were not tried lawfully.
Lambden P. Milligan was one such "traitor". He was arrested at home in Indiana on October 5, 1864 by the order of Brevet Major-General Hovey, military commandant of the District of Indiana. On October 21, Milligan was put on trial before a military commis...
... middle of paper ...
...titutional rights. Ex Parte Milligan is a fundamental case of the government being held in check. It was once said that, "A democracy, even at war, must retain its basic democratic character, or else it loses that for which its citizens fight." The freedom to walk the street or to speak one's mind without fear of disappearance is an essential right to a free society. Ex Parte Milligan set crucial limits on the power of the military and government, even during times of war. rThis case is something to keep in mind as the government seeks to broaden its powers of detention in the name of the fight against terrorism and terrorists.
Bibliography
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/26.htm
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/ramasastry/20020821.html
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=71&invol=2
http://www.britannica.com/
The Civil War was unlike any other war ever fought in America and had many effects on the home front for both the North and the South. It is stated to be the first ever total war, which is a war against not only the civilians but also the armies. The Civil War is also considered the first modern war fought by the U.S. troops. Lincoln asked volunteers to sign up for only three months. Many people thought the war wouldn’t last long. However, the war continued on for four years. The Union armies had around 2,500,000 to 2,750,000 men and the Confederate army had approximately 750,000 to 1,250,000 men. The entire North and South society was affected by the war and desired for many social and economic assets. The Civil war brought new military techniques which caused the armaments to be more destructive. Ironclad ships and railroads were sufficiently used within the war. The north had a motive; they wanted to weaken the South’s longing to victory. The North tried to achieve this last motive by inflicting wholesale destruction upon the South (Janda, 1995). More than a hundred people seemed to be spies or secessionists in Maryland. In time, they were arrested due to not being faithful to the union and their state. Pro-secessionist newspapers were shut down, and telegrams and mail were censored (Perret, 2004).
In the text there was a very important quote that would be in the minds of the Americans for the rest of their lives and a compelling
This essay will examine two documents, The Sharon Statement (1960) and The Port Huron Statement (1962). Both of these documents attempt to defend the liberty of the citizens of the United Sates and demonstrate an opinion on how the government of the United States should approach the future of the country. While both the students in The Sharon Statement and The Port Huron Statement fought for a route to greater freedom, The Sharon Statement supported the founders’ conservative intentions for the United States while The Port Huron Statement proposed a liberal expansion of the government in order to protect individual freedom.
Lincoln's use of executive authority during the civil war is many times illegal and unjust; although his issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation may seem justified, Lincoln blatantly abused his power regarding civil rights. He did things like institute an unfair draft, suspend Constitutional rights, allocate military spending without Congress, and institute emancipation. Although some may justify these actions, they stomped on the Constitution.
Book Title: The American Civil War: A Handbook of Literature and Research. Contributors: Robin Higham - editor, Steven E. Woodworth - editor. Publisher: Greenwood Press. Place of Publication: Westport, CT. Publication Year: 1996
Later on, after President Lincoln abolished slavery(the thirteen amendment in the constitution) the southern states decided to nullify his decision but the went against the constitution. Nullification is illegal. This action cause the bloodiest civil war in America. President Lincoln notice that the US government was not following what they were preaching. After the win in the civil war, the federal government had established themselves with a lot of power.
During the civil war, Lincoln blatantly disregarded the U.S. Constitution and adapted his own form of government. His first step was to suspend the writ of habeas corpus. With such rights thrown away, Lincoln arbitrarily imprisoned those who publicly disagreed with his principles.
A traitor is defined as a "person who betrays his or her country, cause, friends, etc. " (Webster)
anyone who was against the government or who they thought was a traitor. The army or
When one joins the United States military, one becomes subject to a completely new justice system. While the primary purpose of the United States justice system is to dispense "justice," that is not the primary reason for the creation of a separate justice system for America's Armed Forces. The primary purpose of the military's system is to provide the military commander with necessary tools to enforce good order and discipline. That's why, for example, it's not considered a "crime" to be late for work at your civilian job, but it is a "crime" to be late for work in the Military. The purpose then is to keep soldiers acting as soldiers so the correctional philosophy in the military has evolved in such a way to do just that. In discussing the UCMJ and corrections, the following topics are significant.
In comparing the average citizen in a democratic nation, say the United States, to that of a non-democratic nation, for instance Egypt, it will be found that the citizen in the democratic nation is generally better off – free of persecution, free from fear of the authorities, and free to express his opinions on governmental matters. And while national conflicts occur everywhere, incidents like violent revolts have shown to be more prevalent in nations where citizens are not allowed to choose who governs them. It is slightly paradoxical that democracy, so inherently flawed in theory, can lead to such successful outcomes in practice. The question, then, becomes: “If democracy has so many weaknesses, why does it work?”
... Not only does it bring up the complex question of what a democracy really is, but also, depending on the definition of democracy, it questions whether the theory is accurate or inaccurate. For instance, if one views democracy to be a system of government where there is equality and the people are free and autonomous, it could be argued that democracies go to war with each other and have in fact done so. On the other hand, if the definition of democracy is clear, straightforward, or maybe even restrictive, the truth of the theory comes forth. If democracy is defined as a political system where universal suffrage exists, then it really can be argued that democracies do not conflict with each other and no democracies have.
Within democracies there is great dilemma between security (keeping the country and citizens safe) and liberty (honoring individual rights and freedoms). Many would attest that having both is vital to having a democracy. However, during specific periods, the government may value security above liberty or vice versa. In the particular scenario where a country goes to war, the true significance of the debate between security and liberty unveils. More specifically in a situation where a country orders a draft and enacts laws ordering those who protest against the war to be thrown in jail. In this situation, the government is placing the value of security above the value of liberty. Security is necessary, especially in times of war, but ignoring liberties jeopardizes the principles in which democracy was built. In addition, a lack of liberty can cause a country to be divided and citizens to become disloyal. All of which is a recipe for disaster during wartimes. While at the same time, it is important to respect people’s liberties, giving to many liberties threatens the security of the country by allowing citizens to protest and rebel against the government. Thus, a society must decide the right amount of both. People in a society with restricted liberties might begin to feel fear, anger, and resentment. This leads to protest, revolts, and mutinies such as it did in the scenario. Therefore, while security is imperative, undermining citizen’s liberties threatens the structure of democracy by restricting freedom, creating chaos and generating disloyalty in citizens.
middle of paper ... ... Philosophers, such as John Stuart Mill, have debated the role and the extension of government in the people’s lives for centuries. Mill presents a clear and insightful argument, claiming that the government should not be concerned with the free will of the people unless explicit harm has been done to an individual. However, such ideals do not build a strong and lasting community. It is the role of the government to act in the best interests at all times through the prevention of harm and the encouragement of free thought.
It is believed that democracy has important implications on world peace. It is believed that under these types of governments that governments will be less likely to have serious military conflicts. Ironically, as democracy spreads, it is facing conflicts that confront some democracy's legitimacy. And this fact is causing representative governments to become more accountable.