Posted on 04/28/2002 1:24:25 PM PDT by Ditto
"His Truth Goes Marching on!"
Richard F.
It deeply saddens me to see people who call themselves libertarians trying to make money by distorting history to appeal to Confederate glorifiers. Lincoln wasn't perfect, but in four years he managed to quash a slaveholders' rebellion and push through what is unquestionably the most libertarian provision in the Constitution (the 13th Amendment).
Disregarding habeus corpus during a rebellion is Constitutional (see Art. I, Sect. 9), and any argument that Congress alone had that power is defeated by their firm appoval of Lincoln's action.
Taney ruled against Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus.
Isn't it clear that the Supreme Court cannot dictate to the President on matters central to the President's duty to fulfill his office? If the President violates the Constitution, the constitutional recourse is impeachment. A President who judges that a certain action is both constitutional, and essential to the maintenance of the republic, would be derelict in his formal duty if he deferred to the judicial branch and did not perform the action.
Let's be honest. The disagreement is not about the Constitutionality of Lincoln's actions, but about whether the Union was really at stake and whether it was a good thing that Lincoln preserved it. Those who say no, particularly to the second question, tend to say that Lincoln was assaulting the Constitution. Those who judge, with Lincoln, that the Union was in peril and that it was the president's sacred duty to preserve it, find little difficulty in seeing how his actions were Constitutional and necessary and wise. We should not let the matter be diverted into a proxy argument over Constitutional legality, when that matter clearly cannot be settled apart from the broader question of the nature of the federal union, and the president's duty to preserve it, and other related questions.
I don't understand your reasoning at all. 'Davis and his government had its faults...'? Lincoln's alleged violations of the U.S. Constitution are nothing compared with those of Davis. Davis deliberately did away with one of the three branches of government his constitution called for. Lincoln never contemplated anything remotely resembling that. If any of Lincoln's actions were constitutionally questionable then I have no problems discussing them. But my God, ignoring the actions of Davis when they were so much worse than Lincoln's is the height of hypocrisy.
I think DiLorenzo only intended to appeal to the Confederate glorifires pocket book. His mistake was getting too much pre-press publicity for his little scam.
Taney ruled against Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus.
Taney was certainly in favor of using judical power to circumvent the legislative branch. The Dred Scott decision showed that.
Don't you think it strange that with all the people detained under President Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus, that no single case came before the whole court?
If i did, it has not made the splash in CSA glorification that Ex Parte Merryman did.
In any case, the current Chief Justice has opined that the question of whether the president may or may not suspend habeas corpus has never been definitively answered to this very day.
The consensus among legitimate historians is that President Lincoln bent the rules, but he never broke them. And habeas corpus is not an issue that threatens his reputation.
Walt
Save the Davis conversation for another thread called "Debate continues over 'the Real Davis'"
No doubt the union was in peril, but I can't find where the president's duties include preserving the union - is it written anywhere?
Article 2, Section 3.
he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.