Replies

From your post 149: However, the Confederate government's actions in suppressing pro-Unionist civilians in, for example, East Tennessee, did not wait for formal Confederate Congressional authorizations to revoke habeas corpus, etc.

From your post 123: In some areas of the Confederacy, like eastern Tennessee, martial law led to the summary executions of a few civilians and the mass incarceration of others.

A few months after Tennessee's secession, Unionists in East Tennessee started burning railroad bridges to cripple the Confederate war effort. Confederates acted to stop this activity and at least five bridge burners were hung after "trials."

This is similar to Union General Halleck's 1861 order to hang bridge burners caught in the act in Missouri. Link

Many East Tennessee Unionists rose up against the Confederates. Perhaps the following link to a Confederate communication gives an indication of what the Confederates were facing and suggests why the Confederates held captured Unionists as prisoners: Link.

"The whole country now is in a state of rebellion. A thousand men are within six miles of Strawberry Plains Bridge, and an attack is contemplated to-morrow." - Colonel William B. Wood

What rich irony. Union loyalists fighting to protect their communities referred to as rebels by rebels fighting to subjugate them.

I am reminded of the stories of trial and tribulation in these border states whenever I hear loose talk of secession. This is the face of it - families and communities torn apart and set against one another. Good seldom comes from it.

rusty: "Many East Tennessee Unionists rose up against the Confederates.
Perhaps the following link to a Confederate communication gives an indication of what the Confederates were facing and suggests why the Confederates held captured Unionists as prisoners"

The debate here is over Article I, Section 9:

"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

So, were President Lincoln's suspensions of habeas corpus without prior Congressional approval unconstitutional?
Were similar suspensions in the Confederacy also "unconstitutional"?

Consider, the Confederate Congress granted Jefferson Davis authority to suspend habeas corpus in February 1862, just five days after Davis' formal inauguration as President.
By contrast the US Congress debated the subject from July 1861 to February 1863, before finally approving suspension in certain cases.

But in practical terms, didn't both sides in effect suspend habeas corpus, with or without their Congress's approval?

In short: isn't the equivalent of Lincoln's actions in Maryland, Confederate actions in East Tennessee?