And timely.
I look for a redux some time in the next couple of years.
And nowhere is it denied the president; the Constitution is silent on presidential power to suspend the Writ.
And no case ever came before the Supreme Court to test the issue during the ACW.
Walt
That is your opinion. You are welcome to it.
Of course, it won't do much to establish your objectivity.
Walt
"After the battle of New Orleans, and while the fact that the treaty of peace had been concluded, was well known in the city, but before official knowledge had arrived, Gen. Jackson still maintained martial or military law. Now, that it could be said the war was over, the clamor against martial law,, which had existed from the first, grew more furious. Among other things, a Mr. Louiallier published a denunciatory newspaper article. Gen. Jackson arrested him.
A lawyer by the name of Morel procured the United States Judge Hall to issue a writ of hebeus corpus to release Loualier. Gen. Jackson arreted both the lawyer and the judge. A Mr. Holander ventured to say of some part of the mater that "it was a dirty trick." Gen. Jackson arrested him. When the officer undertook to serve the writ Gen. Jackson took it from him, and sent him away with a copy. Holding the judge in custody for a few days, the general sent him beyond the limits of his encampment, and set him at liberty with an order to remain till the ratification of peace should regularly be announced, or until the British should have left the coast.
A day or two elapsed, the ratification of a treaty of peace was regularly announced and the judge and the others were fully liberated. A few days more and the judge called Gen. Jackson into court and fined him $1,000. The general paid the fine, and there the matter rested for nearly thirty years, when Congress refunded principal and interest. The late Senator Douglas then in the House of Representatives, took a leading part in the debates, in which the constitutional question was much discussed. I am not prepared to say whom the journals would show to have voted for the measure.
It may be remarked: First, that we had the same Constitution then as now; secondly, that we then had a case of invasion, and now a case of rebellion; and thirdly, that the permanent right of of the people to Public Discussion, the liberty of speech and the Press, the trial by jury, the law of evidence, and the Habeus Corpus, suffered no detriment whatever by that conduct of Gen. Jackson, or its subsequent approval by the American Congress."
A. Lincoln, 1863
How did you happen to miss this part of the history of habeas corpus?
Walt
The speech from A. Stephens as the CSA contemplated suspending the habeas corpus for a spell:
" the right of personal security against illegal arrests, was wrested from the Crown by the Parliament, and established by Magna Charta, the bill of rights, the abolition of the star chamber, and the grant of the writ of habeas corpus, which is the means of redress against violations of law, and other wrongs against rights secured and acknowledged."Apparently the Southerners could understand their copy of the Constitution just fine. They knew only Congress could suspend the habeas corpus, and a good number of them thought that was a bad idea.- Alexander Stephens - The Great Speech, 16 March, 1864
When asked, as President of the United States, "why not let the South go?" his simple, direct, and honest answer revealed one secret of the wise policy of the Washington Cabinet. "Let the South go!" said he, "where, then, shall we get our revenue?"
-- Albert Taylor Bledsoe, Is Davis a traitor; or, Was secession a constitutional right previous to the war of 1861?, Baltimore: Innes & Company, 1866, pp. 143-144.
Another effort was made to move Abraham Lincoln to peace. On the 22nd, a deputation of six members from each of the five Christian Associations of Young Men in Baltimore, headed by Dr. Fuller, and eloquent clergyman of the Baptist church, went to Washington and had an interview with the President. He received them with a sort of rude formality. Dr. Fuller said, that Maryland had first moved in adopting the constitution, and yet the first blood in this war was shed on her soil; he then interceded for a peaceful separation, entreated that no more troops should pass through Baltimore, impressed upun Mr. Lincoln the terrible responsibility resting on him - that on him depended peace or war - a fratricidal conflict or a happy settlement.
"But," said Lincoln, "what am I to do?"
"Let the country know that you are disposed to recognize the Southern Confederacy," answered Dr. Fuller, "and peace will instantly take the place of anxiety and suspense and war may be averted."
"And what is to become of the revenue?" rejoined Lincoln, "I shall have no government, no resources!" [italics in original]
--Robert Reid Howison, "History of the War", excerpted in Southern Literary Messenger, Vol. 34, Issue 8, August 1862, Richmond, VA., pp. 420-421.
And another similar account of the preceding:
"But," said Mr. Lincoln, "what am I to do?"
"Why, sir, let the country know that you are disposed to recognize the independance of the Southern States. I say nothing of secession; recognize the fact that they have formed a government of their own; that they will never be united again with the North, and and peace will instantly take the place of anxiety and suspense, and war may be averted."
"And what is to become of the revenue?" was the reply. "I shall have no government - no revenues."
--Evert A. Duyckinck, National history of the war for the union, civil, military and naval. Founded on official and other authentic documents, New York: Johnson Fry & Co., 1861.
The meeting was written up in the Baltimore Sun 23 Apr 1861 edition.