Lincoln's income tax was certainly not considered unconstitutional at the time, and one way we can understand this is to remember that the first proposed wartime income tax came from our Father of the Constitution, during Pres. Madison's War of 1812.
Another way to think about it is to read the Constitution and the relevant U.S. Supreme Court opinion. Your blather questions whether the 16th Amendment had any purpose whatever.
The first federal income tax was instituted during the Civil War. It was unconstitutional, your mealy mouthed excuses notwithstanding.
Article 1, sec 2:
Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
Article 1, section 9:
No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
Prior to the 16th Amendment, any unapportioned direct tax was unconstitutional. The 16th Amendment was not meaningless surplusage.
Amendment XVI The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Your entire train of "logic" involving the "law of necessity" was rejected by a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court.
The unanimous U.S. Supreme Court stated:
The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism, but the theory of necessity on which it is based is false....
Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2, 120-21 (1866)
The Law of Necessity is false, and each and every provision of the Constitution applies equally in war and in peace, and none of its provisions may be suspended during any claimed exigency of government.
This applied equally to the unconstitutional assumption of authority to suspend habeas corpus, the unconstitutional delegation of authority to suspend habeas corpus to military officers, and the unconstitutional failure to issue the required return of the writ of habeas corpus.
woodpusher:
"The first federal income tax was instituted during the Civil War.
It was unconstitutional, your mealy mouthed excuses notwithstanding." According to woodpusher in 2024, the Civil War income tax was unconstitutional thus making any other opinions, "mealy mouthed excuses".
But a temporary wartime income tax was first proposed by the Father of the Constitution, Pres. Madison, to help pay for the War of 1812.
Madison's proposal did not pass Congress because it was rendered unnecessary by the 1814 Treaty of Ghent.
It was not at that time declared "unconstitutional".
A temporary wartime income tax was next proposed by the Lincoln administration during the Civil War and this time did pass Congress.
It was not at that time declared "unconstitutional".
In 1894 Progressive Democrats in Congress passed the Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act including a peace-time income tax, signed into law by Democrat Pres. Cleveland.
In 1895 SCOTUS, in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., ruled that income taxes must be apportioned, but such apportioning was considered impractical, thus making non-apportioned income taxes unconstitutional after 1895 and before the 1916 16th Amendment.
Of course, you are free to define "mealy mouthed excuses" however you wish, but I read this history to say that prior to the 1895 SCOTUS ruling, it was not considered unconstitutional for Congress to pass income tax laws, especially under conditions of wartime emergencies.
![]()