What absurd logic! A slave-owner that could never rule on a case involving slaves would also mean that a NON-slave owner could never rule on cases involving freemen. DUH! Treason, for about the zillionth time, does not include all of the acts which you happen to disagree with, including issuing judicial opinions that blasted Lincoln's actions. But specifically, pray tell, how does his ex parte Merryman decision involve slavery?
But Lincoln showed himself a pretty canny lawyer too. He didn't need to arrest Taney -- that much is obvious because of the triumph of Union arms. I mean, after all, the traitors --were-- thrown down, their conspiracy --was-- foiled. Appeals to force do not legitimize illegal actions.
You discount all that. You won't take the real world events into consideration. I don't suppose that is too surprising from someone who implies the Emancipation Proclamation should be revoked.
Justice Curtis (see above) also thought the EP was illegal. And the ruling in ex parte Milligan also vindicated Taney - not Lincoln. Lincoln simply couldn't usurp powers simply because he wanted to.
Free men aren't property.
Walt
President Lincoln can address this himself:
"It was in the oath I took, that I would, to the utmost of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. I could not take the office without taking the oath. Nor was it my view that I might take an oath to get power, and break the oath in using the power. I understood too, that in ordinary civil administration this oath even forbade me to practically indulge my primary abstract judgment on the moral question of slavery. I have publically declared this many times, and in many ways. And I aver that, to this day, I have done no official act in mere deference to my abstract judgment and feeling on slavery.
I did understand however that my oath to preserve the constitution to the best of my ability, imposed upon me the duty of preserving by every indispensible means, that government--that nation--of which that constitution was the organic law. Was it possible to lose the nation, and preserve the constitution? By general law life and limb must be protected; yet often a limb must be amputated to save a life; but a life is never wisely given to save a limb. I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful, by becoming indispensible to to the preservation of the of the Constitution, through the preservation of the nation. Right or wrong, I assumed this ground, and now avow it..."
4/4/64
I think, all things considered, President Lincoln did a daggum good job. You'd have to say that too--if you loved the United States.
Walt