Lincoln's Suspension Of Habeas Corpus Analysis

The American Civil War not only proved to be the country’s deadliest war but also precipitated one of the greatest constitutional crises in the history of the United States. President Lincoln is revered by many Americans today as a man of great moral principle who was responsible for both preventing the Union’s dissolution as well as helping to trigger the movement to abolish slavery. In retrospect, modern historians find it difficult to question the legitimacy of Lincoln’s actions as President. A more precise review of President Lincoln’s actions during the Civil War, however, reveals that many, if not the majority, of his actions were far from legitimate on constitutional and legal grounds. Moreover, his true political motives reveal his

real intentions throughout the war efforts. Lincoln’s actions of suspending the writ of habeas corpus, declaring martial law and war, ordering blockades of southern ports, and confiscating private property were all examples of his gross abuse of executive power and his blatant disregard of constitutionally protected civil liberties. President Lincoln failed to uphold the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, failed to acknowledge the authority of a Federal Court, and blurred the lines of the separation of powers by absorbing expressed legislative authority to the office of the executive; resulting in an immense expansion of executive authority that would establish a precarious precedent for future presidents to exploit.
Lincoln’s abuse of executive power and his failure to acknowledge federal judicial authority is perhaps most evident in his executive orders which infringed upon the basic civil liberties of citizens throughout the Civil War.

One of President Lincoln’s most notable infringements was his suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. Within months of taking the presidential oath, Lincoln ordered the suspension of habeas corpus, citing “supra-constitutional reasons for taking unilateral executive action.” Attorney General Edward Bates’ defense of Lincoln’s actions regarding habeas corpus in which he refers to it as a privilege rather than a guaranteed civil liberty serves as basis for proving the illegitimacy of this act. If the writ of habeas corpus, which protects citizens from unlawful imprisonment, is viewed in the manner that Bates (and Lincoln for that matter) refers to it, one of the most basic constitutional liberties of a right to trial can easily be deprived and can very well devolve into despotism later

on.
Lincoln clearly abused his executive powers as President as he did not have the constitutional authority to suspend habeas corpus unilaterally to begin with.

Lincoln justified his action via the suspension clause, claiming that Congress was in recess and therefore could not fulfill its duty at the time. The Constitution itself specifically references habeas corpus and acknowledges that it can be suspended “in cases of rebellion,” however, as Chief Justice Roger Taney asserted in the ruling of Ex parte Merryman (1861), the writ of habeas corpus falls exclusively in the hands of Congress in Section 9 of Article 1“without the slightest reference to the executive branch.” Additionally, Article 6 provides all persons accused the “right to a speedy and public trial by impartial jury of the state.” Both provisions, Justice Taney stated, are in “language too clear to be misunderstood by anyone.” The ruling concluded by declaring that President Lincoln’s actions in suspending habeas corpus in Maryland were unconstitutional as he did so without proper congressional authorization. According to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Maryland, Lincoln had overstepped his appropriate executive authority as

President.
Lincoln demonstrated his disrespect for the federal court’s ruling when he disregarded Taney’s ruling by continually suspending habeas corpus prior to Congress reconvening in July of 1861. When Congress did reconvene, it failed to approve Lincoln’s unilateral suspension of habeas corpus, which served as clear indication that the legislative branch in itself did not agree with Lincoln’s executive actions. Congress only later authorized presidential suspensions via the Habeas Corpus Act of 1863 due to a Republican majority – but even then this legislation needed to be later revised due to its questionable legal standing. The critique of Lincoln’s misuse of his executive authority did not rely on party affiliation as both Democratic and Republican acknowledged it. Democratic Senator Lazarus Powell of Kentucky argued that “we [Congress] cannot simply delegate our functions” and that doing so would create a dangerous precedent. Senator Powell also asserted that “[Lincoln knowingly] admitted that thousands of people have been arrested without warrant of law.” In fact, approximately 14,000 people were arrested and detained the Civil War on grounds of “disloyalty to the Union” with only 1,500 people receiving a trial via military commissions. Even Republican James Doolittle of Wisconsin conceded that the American people were “unwilling to place in the hands of a single individual this immense power to imprison a man in time of war…it is contended that this should be a legislative power.” Unfortunately, the proper checks and balances against the executive failed to hold President Lincoln accountable on the issue of habeas corpus. Lincoln “clothed himself with more power than any individual had possessed in America before, or since.” President Lincoln’s actions pertaining to suspending habeas corpus were also illegitimate independent of constitutional grounds as they promulgated an immense expansion of executive power that would establish a precarious precedent for future presidents to exploit. Franklin D. Roosevelt, for instance, referenced this precedent when he ordered the imprisonment of Japanese citizens during World War II. In his suspension the writ of habeas corpus, Lincoln had unconstitutionally absorbed delegated Congressional authority by forgoing Congressional approval, outright disregarded a federal court ruling, infringed on basic constitutional rights and liberties, and immensely expanded executive authority for future Presidents to exploit.
President Lincoln also acted illegitimately during the Civil War by imposing martial law, ordering a blockade of southern ports, and declaring war on the Confederacy. The Republican-controlled Congress (as a result of the vacancy of seceding states’ seats) and a Supreme Court that largely remained dormant during this period allowed Lincoln to exploit his constitutional executive authority even further. Senator John P. Hale of New Hampshire, a leading abolitionist emphasized this point in 1861 when he stated that the Supreme Court “utterly failed” in its duty by only “declaring what was agreeable to the [Republican] party in power.” Lincoln began imposing martial law in 1862, but it wasn’t until after the Civil War in 1868 that such an action by the President of the United States was recognized as illegitimate. Ex parte Milligan (1868) unanimously declared presidential imposition of martial law unconstitutional in areas where federal courts were open; essentially deeming Lincoln’s actions regarding marital law as an unconstitutional executive overreach during the War. The majority opinion stated clearly that President Lincoln had violated the Sixth Amendment by imposing martial law in Indiana during the War while the concurring opinion delivered by Chief Justice Salmon Chase articulated that Lincoln’s actions on the matter violated constitutional separation of powers. Although the opinions of the court varied on the specific constitutional aspect that Lincoln had violated by imposing martial law during the War, it was unanimously agreed upon within the Court that such actions were unconstitutional and illegitimate.
Lincoln’s ordering of a blockade of southern ports in April of 1861 was illegitimate due to the lack of congressional approval as well as the fact that the authority to order such a blockade in itself was reserved for the legislative branch. Furthermore, an 1862 federal law affirming President Lincoln’s blockade was passed as an ex-post facto law by a Republican-majority Congress and therefore should be considered void by clause 3 of Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution. In conjunction with the blockade, Lincoln took measures to delegate the authority to declare war, a clearly expressed legislative power, to himself in 1861, undoubtedly violating clauses 11 and 12 of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.
Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation is perhaps one of Lincoln’s worse abuses of power as it deprived loyal southerners of their private property without due process of law. Benjamin Curtis, former Supreme Court Justice, argued the President can “neither suspend nor alter” the law, he can only “faithfully execute them.” Lincoln, in declaring this proclamation, not only suspended property rights and laws relating to slavery but also placed the Declaration of Independence’s language above the Constitution; therefore failing to consider the Constitution as the supreme law of the land.
Lincoln’s actions during the Civil War were clearly illegitimate. Lincoln not only grossly abused his constitutional executive power and blurred the constitutionally defined separation of powers by absorbing expressed legislative powers, but also repeatedly infringed upon constitutionally protected civil liberties, failed to uphold the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, and failed to acknowledge the authority of the Federal Courts.