Replies

Lincoln’s emphasis on the practical is evident during the Civil War when he would defend his decisions or military actions with practical rationale. And he would always back up his rationale with verifications that the Constitution permitted it. With this mindset, Lincoln understood that in order to preserve the nation’s principles that his paternal grandfather and namesake fought for in the American Revolution he had to be willing to make hard choices that would restrict personal liberties.

He believed the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus and all civil liberties to be sacrosanct, but his duty was clear.

While he did suspend the writ of habeas corpus eight different times during the course of the war, it was intended as a “preventative precaution, not as a punitive weapon”.

It was to be an exception for a temporary emergency. The early suspensions, I believe, were justified.

However, his administration did at times go to extremes and make a number of mistakes. Not all of the suspensions throughout the course of the war were justified.

In addition, the suppression of the New York newspapers, censorship of the mails and telegraphs, Fremont’s draconian measures and martial law established in Missouri, and the trial by a military commission of the Indianapolis defendants were all cases of an administration and military run amuck, exercising dubious authority at best.[18]

While Lincoln made debatable decisions concerning civil liberties during the Civil War, he never did waver from his primary goal. The goal he achieved in holding the nation together under one constitution is how most people today evaluate his performance as president.

The daunting task of fighting and winning a civil war cannot even be imagined today. Clearly, strong leadership skills were necessary.

And no man, except those who have taken the presidential oath of office, can fully appreciate the awesome responsibility of being President of the United States.

The most obvious sign to the public that each man, before and since Lincoln, has been transformed by the job is his aged appearance when leaving office. They were all transformed by the presidency, but only some reciprocated in kind.

Every United States President has taken some action or made some decision that has been construed to be at the least questionable, at the most impeachable.

Even William Henry Harrison made at least one questionable decision in his brief tenure as president when he chose to give a lengthy inaugural address on a cold windy day without his gloves, overcoat or hat.

These men are not gods. They aren’t even angels. They are, simply put, exceptional men (for the most part) who have been chosen by the electorate to lead a nation at a given time to serve a specific purpose.

Lincoln was one of the most exceptional of these men. We see that in his legacy. I know of no other President that we have had before or since (during their own particular time in office) who could have come into office facing civil unrest and then civil war, deny civil liberties to the extent that they were denied, withstand harsh criticism only to be re-elected by a landslide (in the electoral college), and preserve a presidential legacy that continues to rank him #1 among all of our past presidents by respected historians.

The point is that we choose not to highlight his poor decisions and shortcomings, but to view him as the man who used all of his executive resources to save a nation from destroying itself, the man who preserved the Union and ultimately ended slavery.

One of the most important reasons we remember him this way is because of who he was as a man, because of his character.

While he did make mistakes and he did usurp power not specifically granted to the executive branch in the Constitution, he did not do it selfishly.

As he struggled to fulfill his oath of office and persevere in the most trying time in our history, Lincoln was genuine and unassuming. His legacy was not an issue for him, which should be a lesson for Bill Clinton.

Character does matter.

(emphasis were added)

http://www.raleightavern.org/lincoln.htm

This is from an author who is very critical of Lincoln on civil rights.

How does the South fare in their protection of civil rights?

Southern Rights, Confederate Wrongs

http://www.h-net.msu.edu/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=8642948837872

Neely challenged this consensus by examining the available arrest records, court opinions, and other documents related to Confederate wartime arrests of civilians; in other words, he applied basically the same methodology which worked so well in Fate of Liberty. Focusing particularly on cases involving suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, declarations of martial law, draft evasion, and other expressions of dissent, he found that the Confederate record was not much different from that of the Union. Confederate authorities, Neely argues, used much the same pragmatic, flexible approach characteristic of the Lincoln administration. "Though Confederate measures taken for internal security, when noticed at all, have been assumed to be necessary, and, if anything, too mild, there is evidence of political repression," Neely wrote (p. 132). People in the Confederacy were arrested for their political beliefs, jailed without benefit of the writ of habeas corpus, and subjected to the sometimes not-very-tender mercies of martial law and military rule.

Given the South's self-proclaimed role as a champion of individual rights, one might have expected an outcry of protests, or at the very least a robust conversation about civil liberties among Southern politicians, lawyers, and newspapermen. But Neely argues that this was not the case. Most white Southerners quietly acquiesced in the suspension of the writ, declarations of martial law, and other such measures. Neely identified a "longing for order in the South, released by independence from the North and quite at odds with region's fabled desire for liberty or 'southern rights'" (p. 34). He was struck by the contrast with the North, where Lincoln's various attempts to curb antiwar protests triggered a boisterous debate about civil liberties in wartime. "It seems remarkable that there are no celebrated cases challenging the power of the Confederate government to interfere with the daily lives of its citizens," he wrote, "Confederate history does not have its equivalent of Ex parte Merryman or of General Andrew Jackson's fine for contempt" (p. 62). The Confederacy was no different from the North; it wanted to win the war. "Southern society was, at bottom, American and much the same as Northern society. It consisted of people who valued both liberty and order. They did not bridle more than normally at restrictive measures taken by the government to fight a war for national existence" (p. 79).

At its heart, Southern Rights is about what Neely perceives as an overweening Confederate streak of hypocrisy; the very title of his book is a statement of irony. Neely is impatient with what he characterizes as the "strident" and "noisy" posturing of Confederates on matters of civil liberties and individual rights. He is also deeply distressed by a tendency among Confederate historians to take Southerners' declarations of libertarianism at face value. "Antebellum politicians exaggerated sensitivity about southern rights as a means of combating northern power," Neely wrote, "but historians should not exaggerate as well" (p. 79

[ftD #1159] He believed the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus and all civil liberties to be sacrosanct, but his duty was clear.

His sworn duty as president is to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." He cannot do that by raping the Constitution.

[ftD #1159] While he did suspend the writ of habeas corpus eight different times during the course of the war, it was intended as a “preventative precaution, not as a punitive weapon”.

Purportedly good intent is no defense to Constitutional rape.

[ftD #1159] The early suspensions, I believe, were justified.

The early suspensions were effected by military officers, at the discretion of said military officers, as unlawfully authorized by other military officers, as unlawfully authorized by Abe the Constitutional rapist. He and his administration proceeded to ignore the clear opinion rendered by CJ Taney, acting as Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.