Lincoln's Suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus

Civil War History ^ | Washington, April 27, 1861. | Editorial Staff of President Lincoln

[vannrox]

Lincoln's Suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus
Relating to the Events in Baltimore

 

 

HEADQUARTERS OF THE ARMY,
Washington, April 27, 1861.

The undersigned, General-in-Chief of the Army, has received from the President of the United States the following communication:

COMMANDING GENERAL ARMY OF THE UNITED STATES:

You are engaged in repressing an insurrection against the laws of the United States. If at any point on or in the vicinity of the military line which is now used between the city of Philadelphia via Perryville, Annapolis City and Annapolis Junction you find resistance which renders it necessary to suspend the writ of habeas corpus for the public safety, you personally or through the officer in command at the point where resistance occurs are authorized to suspend that writ.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

In accordance with the foregoing warrant the undersigned devolves on Major-General Patterson, commanding the Department of Pennsylvania, Delaware and Maryland; Brigadier-General Butler, commanding the Department of Annapolis, and Colonel Mansfield, commanding the Washington Department, a like authority each within the limits of his command to execute in all proper cases the instructions of the President.

WINFIELD SCOTT.

RETURN TO MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS PAGE

[Doctor Stochastic]

These violations of Constitutional protection were applied to Southerners not to Citizens. That should be fine with the "Living Document Conservatives."

[Elihu Burritt]

Twodees, before you strike you should read. The Constitution specifies that the "priviledge of the writ of habeas corpus" can be suspended. The poster did find it. It's in the Constitution.

The priviledge of the writ of Habeus Corpus shall not be suspended, unless in time of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

It's a power only of congress. It becomes a presidential power in Congress's absence but it does require their later approval unless their approval was given in advance.

W operates under the general permission given to him by congress to deal with wartime threats, but this is another reason the matter will come back again to haunt W as election politics become increasingly involved. The current benefits of a few needlessly rigged trials may not be worth the endless spin on the violations of rights that will eventually come out as most of the detainee's are let go. This was also a great problem for Lincoln, and as we see her today all these years later, it still is a problem for his reputation.

[Twodees]

It's in Article I, ma'am. Article I is the legislative Article. The only grant of power to the Executive branch in Article I is a grant to the Vice President. Article II is the Executive Article. The privilege of the writ is not mentioned there.

[DeaconBenjamin]

Barbara Streisand. Military arrest and trial (as well as arrest without trial) was applied not only to residents and agents of the South, but also to critics of the administration in the North. You might want to read Chief Justice Rehnquist's book on the subject, All the Laws But One. Newspaper publishers were arrested (and newspapers suppressed), ministers were arrested (e.g., for omitting the prescribed prayer for the President of the United States), even a federal judge was placed under house arrest (without pay) for issuing a writ of habeas corpus.

[Doctor Stochastic]

I should have included Southern Sympathizers too.

[DeaconBenjamin]

You wield a broad brush.

[Doctor Stochastic]

So did Lincoln.

[Free the USA]

bump

[KDD]

THIS is what the Chief Justice of the United States, William Rehnquist had to say about it in remarks delivered at the Indiana University School of Law--Bloomington on Monday, October 28, 1996

[truth_seeker]

Precedent doesnt mean squat.

Wrong. Our entire system of laws, is based on precedent; first established as "common law" in England, and fully adopted in our system.

Show me in the consitution where it says if the govt screws up it sets a precedent that is now law. you think like a slave

It says the final authority is the Supreme Court--the buck stops there, "screw up" or not. I think it is your thinking which is worth challenging--by a thing called reality.

[GVnana]

W operates under the general permission given to him by congress to deal with wartime threats

An interesting point, but the critics seem to forget that Congress--altough it did not declare war--did authorize the use of force. It can be argued (my guess is successfully as in the case of Lincoln) that in such cases, the President (as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces) is authorized to declare states of rebellion and empower tribunals under his authority.

[GVnana]

That should be fine with the "Living Document Conservatives."

LOL! Dr. Sarcastic?

[GVnana]

Two questions: does the present situation qualify as a rebellion or invasion, and which branch of government is thereby empowered to suspend the privilege?

Good questions. I can only offer the information that Congress approved the use of force in the so-called "Patriot Act" and this will most likely be the directive pointed to when called to justify the use of tribunals.

[GVnana]

It's in Article I, ma'am. Article I is the legislative Article.

Yes, twodees, and Congress authorized the use of force which puts the military into play, and empowers the President as Commander in Chief.

[Elihu Burritt]

An interesting point, but the critics seem to forget that Congress--altough it did not declare war--did authorize the use of force. It can be argued (my guess is successfully as in the case of Lincoln) that in such cases, the President (as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces) is authorized to declare states of rebellion and empower tribunals under his authority.

Ah! Force bills! of course. These have often been issued by Congress in peacetime. In a real sense in the old days they bypassed the President. It was a case of congress exercising military power on it's own. In Lincoln's day, when Lincoln took his actions when Congress was out of town, upon his return he went back to them to have them sanctioned.

The President was only the Commander in Chief during war. In peace time he was not. As part of the imperial presidency he is essentially now full time generalissimo. In the old Republic, the President tipped his hat when the military saluted. I like that so much better.

[Twodees]

You obviously don't understand the doctrine of separation of powers. Congress is not empowered to delegate any of their powers to another branch of government. Besides, Lincoln pulled all this nonsense while Congress was in recess. Show me where Congress finally got around to declaring war for Lincoln.

Lincoln usurped the powers of the other two branches of government and arrogated powers to himself that were never delegated to any branch of government in the Constitution. That is irrefutable.

[rwfromkansas]

bump

[Non-Sequitur]

Article 1, Section 9 refers to powers prohibited Congress, not the President. There is nothing in the Constitution which specifically precludes the President from suspending habeas corpus. In 1999, Chief Justice Rehnquist pointed out that the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of Lincoln's actions had never been decided.

[Non-Sequitur]

Congress is not empowered to delegate any of their powers to another branch of government.

Sure they can. A prime example of that was the Militia Act of 1792 which authorized the President to call up the militia in cases of invasion or rebellion when Congress was not in session.

[GVnana]

Congress is not empowered to delegate any of their powers to another branch of government.

Huh? You can't practice government by rote. If what you say is true, then we would have no present military response to Al Qaeda. How would that possibly be a satisfactory outcome?